The state run television has always been or forced to be a monotonous mouthpiece of the ruling few in kathmandu. This is a response to a television interview given by Mr. Padma Sundar Lawati in the state owned television the other night. The views expressed by him, I thought, were intended to please the ruling the class and had a tone that would make any democratic person go to a spin. On point to point basis, I would like to remind Mr. Lawati why and where is he and possibly the government going wrong in understanding the present political situation.
1. The king is the only unifying factor of Nepali.
Ok! This is what we have been studying since our school days. If, I was still a child innocent of my country’s history, I would believe it. But I am not. Are we Neapli really that weak that if (hypothetically) there were no monarchy, we would be divided? More divided than we are now? Yes, we were unified as one by His majesty’s the king prithvi bir bikram shah dev some 200 years ago. But, since then our (or rather the monarchy’s) history has been about nothing more than power struggles and bloodsheds. Do I need to remind you about the most recent one?
2. The Maoists are using the Seven parties, and the crippled seven parties are using hook or crook to get into power.
This might be a possibility. But, since we, the Nepali people are trusting the establishment in kathmandu, that they are committed to bring peace to the country even when it failed to reciprocate to a unilateral ceasefire by the maoists, I think we should also give a chance to this unholy of all the alliances. After all, every body is asking for time; the king is asking the time, we dont seem to mind it. Not giving the these people what we are giving to the eastablishment(ie time) would really be a biased step. The point here is not that who is involved in the peace making process but eastablishment of peace.
3. Seven parties are with maoists just to reach to the people of village.
I dont know what is the problem with that? They(seven parties) are trying to have an interaction at locall level. This statement clarifies two points. The government has no means to get what people in real Nepal (village) really want because it has lost too much grounds to the rebels. Atleast the parties are trying to get the feel of the people, the eastablishment at kathmandu does not even care.
4. If Iran and Afghanistan can have elections, why can’t we have a general election?
I dont understand why would he compare Nepal with these states. Why would you not compare the election process with some lesser controversial election processes. This means that you believe that if there were suppose to have an election, it would be highly controversial and therefore irregularities would occur. And you still believe that Nepal is not a failure state. Come on, a country whose election is due for more than 3 years, not a failure. Were you high on previous days bhang?
5. If they(seven parties) are not ready to hold talks with the government, this government will keep on running without any hassles.
Now, this is most irresponsive response I have heard from somebody who is a leader of country’s leading party. This sums up the mood of autocracy that prevails in the administration today. They are simply not worried about getting a solution to this decade long problem.