After watching pro-government leader on Nepal Television, a UWB reader reacts… [Padma Sundar Lawati is a leader of the breakaway faction of RPP that is headed by Home Minister Kamal Thapa. At the time of breakup, it was widely assumed that Lawati would be the chairman of the new party. But in a surprise move, Kamal Thapa emerged out as the leader sidelining Lawati. It was believed that Dr. Tulsi Giri’s hand was behind that surprise- UWB]
By Amod Niroula
The state run Nepal 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 he and possibly the government are 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 the King (Bada Maharaj) Prithvi Narayan Shah 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, trust the establishment in Kathmandu that they are committed to bring peace to the country even if 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 don’t seem to mind it. Not giving these people what we are giving to the establishment (i.e. time) would really be a biased step. The point here is not that who is involved in the peace making process but establishment of peace.
3. Seven parties are with Maoists just to reach to the people of village.
I don’t know what is the problem with that? They (seven parties) are trying to have an interaction at local 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 ground to the rebels. At least the parties are trying to get the feel of the people; the establishment at Kathmandu does not even care.
4. If Iran and Afghanistan can have elections, why can’t we have a general election?
I don’t understand why you would 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 day’s 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.