The courageous but yet insulting eye-opener being made by the lone Nepal expert from India, S. D. Muni, that he was the one who remained instrumental ( or managed) in bringing the then Delhi residing Nepal Maoist leaders, Prachanda and Bhattarai, closer to the Indian establishment wherein he even claims that both of these two ‘illustrious sons of the Nepali soil’ signed some sort of a Treaty with the Indian government at the Prime Minister’s office of India vowing that their “People’s War” will never target the Indian security interests and that whatever they will do be completely to shake the Nepali foundations to which they did in the later years after the signing of the said Treaty-June 2002. Added energy was definitely there after the agreement. Mother Nepal must have wept while she observed her two sons signing the treaty with an unfriendly traditional neighbor.
Question now comes to our mind as to whether a government establishment, that Indian republic born 1947 is, can sign a Treaty with some ordinary nationals from an alien but a sovereign land? Can such a Treaty between the two unmatching powers assume the authority of a Treaty?
Question by extension thus could also be asked as to whether the Indian enterprise could go so low as to sign a treaty of far reaching significance with two Nepali nationals? But for what gains? It must not have been free though. The calamity then followed, if one were to recall.
Yet one has to believe that such a treaty between Prachanda-Bhattarai set of two with the Indian PMO had been made because the announcement has come from such a person who is more than interested in observing Nepal being torn apart into pieces. This when stretched further means that the Indian Professor who is tentatively hated in Nepal, yet his illusion is just the otherwise, must have a role in managing such a secret contact with the Indian machinations in order to damage Nepal to what still remains as his desire and longing. This also means that Professor Muni had been assigned this task.
Well since the discovery has already been made which can’t be dismissed simply because it has already been published in the form of a book where these grand announcements have been made by Professor Muni in his separate article contained in the said book.
This now raises yet another question as to why these two Nepali nationals approached for support of an alien government to devastate their own motherland? As far as damaging and bombing of their own Nepal is concerned, to which they did with as much force as they could invest in such a campaign which may have definitely trebled after signing of the said Treaty, they could have done or accomplished on their own and with the support of the illiterate, innocent and the underage soldiers, later named as Maoists Army, thus what was the pressing need for asking the support of an alien nation to obliterate their own mother soil? Somber Bajpayee was the Indian PM then. This too has some meaning.
We can just ask questions expecting some convincing answers from the ones who dared to enter into a treaty with the Indian machination, nevertheless, we also understand that the answers to these questions will never be made public from the concerned quarters as it has already become now a matter of great dilemma as the internal nitty-gritty of such an agreement has come from the horses’, read S. D. Muni, mouth which neither can be digested nor could be swallowed at a single stretch.
This further raises one more equally important query. And the question is why S. D. Muni, the most intimate friend of Bhattarai and Prachanda respectively of the People’s War fame, chose to malign the prestige of his own Nepali collaborators at this juncture? Mind it that such a disclosure has come at a time when the original Maoists party has split into two equal halves? Was it a preplanned move of Muni under the Indian government or for that matter the RAW instructions to do what he has done? What could have been the motive of the Indian government in encouraging Professor Muni to release the book “Nepal in Transition…” at a time when the entire Maoists paraphernalia remains in a battered state with the chances of one grander split again?
Or was it a deliberate move of the Indian regime to damage both the Maoist’s top hats concluding that their use has already been made and now they were not that much important politicos whom the Indian regime can further repose trust? Use and throw?
Well it happens so in diplomacy. One is respected and honored as long as he or she possesses the guts to serve the concerned countries’ interests. When overly used, such personalities become a filthy item worth remaining inside a dust bin.
But is it that Dr. Bhattarai who according to Ms. Pampha Bhusal, was born in Nepal only to serve the Indian regime too has become an added burden for the Indian administration? Or India now is in search of yet another Arabian Horse who could be whipped in order to keep Nepal under its firm grip and continue with the Sonia’s coercive doctrine?
However, we at this paper find some logic in the revelation of Professor S. D. Muni which though has damaged the political credentials of the men whose names he has registered as to have been the “men of India”. The announcement to smash up Prachanda and Bhattarai has been a deliberate affair and the simple logic has been that it is this Professor who has time and again been repeating that India’s former Nepal policy has failed and that India now needed to draft a new policy on Nepal. To boot, Professor S. D. Muni is on record to have said this during his declared and undeclared several trips to Nepal.
Thus we at this paper can just console the “broken hearts” of the ones whom Professor Muni has pounced upon through his story published in a book in the United States, for some mysterious reasons, and appeal to the pained ones to make public their own versions as to what could have been the mens rea of Professor Muni in making their “secret” association with the Indian regime and that too when the now sidelined King has begun asserting his former role.
Our sympathies are with the charged ones. K Garney?
After all, as Nepali nationals, analysts would prefer to believe the Nepali versions from Dahal and Bhattarai. Blood must be thicker than water.
Yet any delay in making public their own explanations of the entire episode as alleged by S. D. Muni will only add to suspicion in the minds of the Nepali population who in some way or the other take both the charged ones as what has been best described by the Indian Professor.
Act fast or prepare yourselves to lose. This time the loss may be a Himalayan one. Take it for granted. The scar will ever chase you both. The option is yours.
Editorial in the Telegraph weekly, July 11, 2012.