Nepal: Domestic treachery and restive North!

N. P. Upadhyaya

Kathmandu: Politics is precipitating. Whether it is for the better or would prove to be otherwise is very difficult to fathom at this period marked by absolute confusion.

While July 9, 2013, will go a long way to be forgotten by the common population of the grand insult, the day ahead, July 8, too will be remembered for a landmark verdict made by Nepal’s Apex Court.

While July 9 saw the discourteous parade of the Nepali VVIPs at the Dwarika Hotel wherein one Indian minister was lodged, then July 8 was the day when the Supreme Court ordered the government not to ink any deal or whatsoever during the visit of the Indian minister.

In effect Salman Khurshid had come to sign an agreed upon deal with India on matters relating with the establishment of Check points at Lumbini and Pasupatinagar.

The Nepal government had agreed to sign this deal as per the agreed minutes arrived at the meeting between the Home Secretaries of Nepal and India held in Kathmandu, June 1, 2013 which in part says, (sic) “The Indian side proposed to establish immigration check points at Lumbini and Pasupatinagar. The Nepalese side agreed to it in principle and would officially respond through diplomatic channels”. (Article 25).

(The photo copy of the June 1, 2013 Nepal-India joint minute is safe with this paper).

If one reads the entire text of the agreed upon minutes, it would not be that hard to predict the Indian mal-intentions that this country possesses towards Nepal beginning Nehru days.

There are several other agreed upon points which makes it clear that the Chief Justice led election government exceeded its limits and tentatively had tried its best to handover the national integrity and also the sovereignty to the mercy of the Indian establishment. It could be taken as a treacherous act committed by the election government against their own nation. Isn’t it a classic example of domestic treachery?

Thanks that the Supreme Court intervened and thus the sanctity of mother Nepal was saved.

But for how long?

Now let’s take up other point that are of equal significance because of the contents.

Dr. Shashank Koirala while talking to the Nepali BBC service in an implied manner, at times his expressions were straight even, admitted that his own party committed a Himalayan blunder by overthrowing the Institution of Nepali Monarchy. (See five questions for the literal translation of Koirala’s interview. Already on the website).

In the course of his interview Dr. Koirala tentatively appealed his party leadership to correct the past blunder, earlier the better.

This does mean that at least one son of late BP Koirala prefers that his party reverts back to the reconciliation theory and bring back the Royal Institution in order to what he claims “save the nation from being pushed to disintegration”. Dr. Shekhar Koirala is yet to speak about this. He will not speak though.

As if this were not enough, Dr. Koirala point blank told a gathering organized to mark the BP day that “BP was against the notion of federalism and that federalism in a country like Nepal was not a suitable option in that such an order may disintegrate the nation for sure.

More puzzling and juicy is the political overture freshly taken and being disseminated by the NCP-Maoists party led by Chairman Mohan Baidya. Sounds absurd but in politics such propositions may take shape.

This party now openly has begun stating that in order to strengthen the already weakened Nepali nationalism, and to preserve the Nepali sovereignty, the NCP-Maoists party was ready to extend its hands of support to the now sidelined King all in the name of nationalism.

Baidya party thus sees in Ex-King a true nationalist persona.

However, this party has some sticks also for having such a tacit link with former King Gyanendra.

The conditions are that the unity is only possible if the other side accepts the party’s stance on republican order and many things more.

Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai prefers now to see Nepal’s former sovereign in jail had he been the nation’s PM. “He should be imprisoned” is what Dr. Bhattarai said Yesterday, July 23, 2013.

Whether the former Monarch will tie up with Baidya’s party on set conditions is a matter of speculation, however, the crude reality is that Baidya party loves King Gyanendra and vice versa to which we had in these columns predicted someone and a year half ago or even more.

But why Baidya prefers unity with ex-King? Is it the party’s self structured decision? Or some alien forces have been trying to bring these two Nepali forces closer in the name of “nationalism”.

Or is it just a ploy of some “moles” inside the NCP-Maoists to damage the credentials of their own party?


The fact is that Baidya and his party colleagues have begun reiterating the likelihood of the unity with the former Monarch just after Baidya made a trip to Beijing, July 8, 2013, late evening.

Is this just a mere conjecture or what?

Needless to say, Beijing has become grim these days upon analyzing the Nepali affairs. Could be that Beijing is in the search of a strong ally and reliable partner in Nepal who could at least seriously look after its minimum interests and perhaps now China concludes that her interests would be well taken care of by the Nepali nationalists are housed in a single camp. To hope is allowed in a democracy.

But the fact is also that Baidya spent some good ten years in India. Baidya is thus advised to prove his nationalistic credentials by exposing the details as to how and why and who remained instrumental in the announcement of the people’s war? And how he was arrested in Siliguri?

No less interesting is the fresh announcement of the US Ambassador Peter Bodde wherein he very explicitly suggests that, in his own words, (sic) “Nepal should find a political system that suits to the country’s needs”.

The US envoy made this vague statement but yet it must have meaning underneath.

Thus all put together, politics is poised for an upheaval. However, will it be in the country’s interests or prove even more fatal, the coming days will perhaps unfold.

Beijing definitely has begun taking sufficient interest in Nepali affairs which speaks of its restiveness. (Penned Tuesday, July 23, 2013, 9.30 AM and posted with minor additions). 

Published in the Telegraph Weekly July 24, 2013.

Post your Comment here

TERMS OF USE:The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any persons) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).


I agree


  • Posted on - 2014-09-22    by     gaunle
  • It might have been correct at that point of time but now this may need reconsideration when people have started understanding what is what! Why must Scotland and Ireland be problems for UK? and there are so many stark examples all over the world!