Forgot your password?
Indian and European Diplomats’ Adventure in Nepal
By KTM Metro Reporter
After BJP President Rajnath Singh’s and then retired Major General Ashok Mehata’s comments on the internal affairs of Nepal, now Indian diplomat Shyam Saran took his turn to speak about the internal affairs of Nepal. Mr. Shyam Saran hurriedly came to Nepal to boost the morale of severely weakened Interim Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala before the opening of the Special Session of the Interim Legislature in Kathmandu on October 11, 2007.
On October 12, 2007, after completing the meeting with the Prime Minister and other political leaders in Kathmandu and before returning to his motherland, Indian diplomat Shyam Saran told the reporters that (1) it is not appropriate to declare Nepal a republic by the Interim Legislature, (2) so, it is necessary to get the fresh mandate of the Nepalese people to declare Nepal a republic; hence, it is necessary to hold a free and fair election for a constituent assembly, (3) the current government would lose its legitimacy if it would not hold an election for a constituent assembly, and (4) assured the Prime Minister of Nepal of assisting the Nepalese government in curbing the violence in terai areas.
After so many interferences by the foreign diplomats in the Nepalese internal affairs, the rational-thinking Nepalis believe that it is time to speak up against the foreign interferences in Nepalese business. It has been too much for the logical-thinking Nepalese people to listen to the news about the foreign diplomats repeatedly meeting with the Nepalese Prime Minister and the political leaders and talking to them without disclosing to the Nepalese people what they have talked to.
The first question to Mr. Shyam Saran is what the reaction of the rational-thinking Indian people would be if the Nepalese ambassador in New Delhi met with Indian Prime Minister Dr. Man Mohan Singh and told him that his government had no legitimacy and he needed to get fresh mandate from the Indian people, so he needed to hold mid-term polls in India.
The second question to Mr. Shyam Saran is how he could doubt the legitimacy of the Nepalese government if the election for a constituent assembly was not held soon. Why he could not question the legitimacy of the Thai Junta, Myanmar Junta and President Pervez Musharraf’s government in Pakistan if Mr. Saran held the rights to question the legitimacy of any government elsewhere in the world.
If Mr. Saran’s assurance of assisting the Nepalese Prime Minister in curbing the violence in terai were meant to suppress the ongoing peaceful movement of the ethnic and Madheshi people for their rights to have their proportional representation in a constituent assembly, to self-rule and republic federalism, then it would invite disaster to the current government.
Mr. Shyam Saran’s comments on the internal affairs of Nepal irked the rational-thinking Nepalese people and hurt them deeply. In addition, Mr. Saran’s comments on the Nepalese affairs would boost up the morale of the regressive forces headed by the king and seconded by the Interim Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, derail the ongoing peace process and push the country to conflict again.
Similarly, the ambassadors of the European Union also have been repeatedly meeting the Prime Minister and the political leaders but have never disclosed to the Nepalese people what they have talked to. The logical-thinking Nepalese people request the European diplomats to stop the unwanted and undesirable activities interfering in the internal affairs of the Nepalese people’s business.
The question to the European ambassadors is what their compatriots would react to if the Nepalese ambassador in Paris and London met with the French President and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to tell them to correct the wrong racial policy they have adopted. (SBR)
