If we look back a little, we will find that Gyanendra Shah as a king had all the opportunities to strengthen kingship. But he let them slip one after the other until the people lost their patience and revolted against him. During his one-man rule, he gave full vent to his selfishness, ancestry glorification, disdain towards political parties, repression of rebels, defiance of international opinion and ineptitude in public policy. Despite all these provocations, Nepali Congress and especially its president, Girija Prasad Koirala, with due respect to B P Koirala’s fundamental belief on a constitutional monarchy, tried his utmost to bring the then king around the idea of retaining a baby king. But all his efforts went in vain. Even the closest of Gyanendra’s men have publicly admitted that during his heydays, he did not listen to any sensible advice. Who can now deny that the king was solely responsible for the demise of kingship in Nepal?
What is surprising is to find even the civil society indulging in homicidal acts. The Nepali civil society earned great credit in mobilizing the people during Janaandolan II but it lost its independent credibility with most of the groups siding with one or the other political parties.
Following the political change in 1990, the democrats too had golden opportunities to strengthen democracy and deliver services to the full satisfaction of the people. But they too dithered in carrying out their public responsibilities. Instead of helping the political situation to stabilize, the political leaders played dirty power games that resulted into continuous political instability. The repeated abrogation of the elected parliaments led to loss of national resources, institutional uprightness and public trust on the value of the elected body. Instead of providing a clean and efficient administration, they indulged in naked corruption, nepotism, mismanagement and misappropriation. The political leaders left no room for the people to hold on to their faith on them. That was the reason the people refused to respond to their calls for public demonstrations against the king who took over power in 2002. For at least four years from then, democracy was dead and it was the leaders who were responsible for it. Was it not tantamount to homicide of democracy at the hands of the democrats?
Unfortunately, the Maoists are doing something similar. Republicanism was their objective and Constituent Assembly (CA) was their agenda. Both of them were successfully achieved. Now, they have every reason to feel proud of these achievements. The people too rewarded them with maximum votes in the national polls instituting them as the biggest party in the legislature-parliament. To be in government or out of it is not all that important, they claim. What is really important is to strengthen republicanism and CA as institutions. But what they are presently doing is just the opposite. They are disrupting the smooth functioning of their baby, the CA, and denigrating the president, the symbol of republicanism. They have a reason to be disgruntled over the Rookmangud Katawal case but that does not justify, more so at present, what looks like homicide of both the institutions for the establishment of which they made the greatest contribution. Political leaders learn to eschew a few bitter pills for the sake of long-term goals. If they don’t, they cause the death of their own cherished goals. Aren’t the Maoists throwing out the baby with the bath tub? Yet another political homicide? Oh! No.
The Madhesi leaders are not far behind in making the same mistakes of undermining their avowed goal of establishing a separate state of the whole Tarai belt under a new federal constitution. Under a fragile umbrella cover, the Madhes-based parties stand divided and sub-divided. They have made it clear that they are more swayed by lust for power and state perks than their single agenda of One Madhes, One Pradesh. With Tharus revolting against this demand and the Madhesi People’s Rights Forum split into two, One Madhes, One Pradesh looks increasingly unachievable. It is none other than the Madhesi parties who are responsible for the homicide of their grand cause.
What is surprising is to find even the civil society indulging in homicidal acts. The Nepali civil society earned great credit in mobilizing the people during Janaandolan II but it lost its independent credibility with most of the groups siding with one or the other political parties. Sans independence, the civil society is no longer effective.
The same is true with the media. There is no doubt that the Nepali media made great progress in press freedom, accessibility and quality of production. But, again, it is destroying its credibility by parting with objectivity. It no longer has to bear the attack from the government, which was so blatant during the royal regime. If there is somebody who is eroding its effectiveness, it is its own performance.
Even the judiciary came under a valid criticism for giving priority to give a verdict on the vice-president’s oath-taking in Hindi. Weren’t there many other equally important and controversial cases pending in the Supreme Court? Why didn’t they take up those first? Quite bizarre!
This homicidal tendency is also visible in, of all the people, Rakesh Sood, the Indian ambassador to Nepal. We can understand he is doing his duty of promoting Indian interests and goodwill in Nepal. But look at the results. The more he is active, the more the people suspect him of interfering in our internal affairs. That has caused increasing loss of goodwill. Can the loss of goodwill promote India’s interests in Nepal? If it can, I am ready to stand corrected. If not, he too is committing political homicide.
adityaman@hotmail.com
Related story
Homicide accused arrested after 17 years
-1200x560-1774341373.webp)
