Yet another group of foreign policy experts have begun dominating the foreign policy domain of Nepal which in effect doesn't exist at all. At least, I haven't noticed that Nepal as a nation-state has any policy as such which could be taken as the formal "foreign policy" of Nepal.
Yet the experts so claim then let's believe that we have the one, albeit in a reluctant manner.
Some people have in the mean time charged that I have been writing rough and tough articles and editorial comments that at times appear a personalized attack.
I disown this allegation basically simply because as a media man, responsible for the nation and its citizenry, I am bound by my duties and the media ethics which encourage me more often than not to criticize those who talk just flimsy and in a whimsical manner that adds up to the confusion in an already confused society that we are now.
Being in this profession for over four decades plus, I jumped into this sector when I was at the fag end of my vibrating teens, I have come across with some self claimed duffers, hangers on and the likes who change their colors with the change in the system.
Many of my own colleagues who were the "moles" working "on duty" and supplying information to the then leaders of the erstwhile Panchayat system overnight became champions of democracy and now, needless to say, have wore the garb of the republican order.
This applies also to quite a good number of Nepal politicians who like chameleons have made home to several different parties in the past and have settled for some time now, let's say for specified periods, in a particular party.
Hope they will change the home if they find a suitable one. They will surely do so as is my experience.
So I got diverted from the main issue. Sorry for this unscrupulous behavior.
Two foreign policy experts talked two different things on a common topic.
The first one, whom I know as an economist only and a party card holder, made a grand revelation that "China will not entertain a single person's version and that China's overall foreign policy towards Nepal will not change even if some sweet words may have been said by the Chinese authorities to Prachanda during latter's fresh China tour.
He was correct. China is firm on its foreign policy issues. Hundred percent correct that he spoke. However, the political overtones with which this "expert" made this revelation appeared more to have been guided by his hatred against China because China did not invite him but Prachanda.
What is the harm if Prachanda makes a trip to China? Why is this anger and hatred?
I am confident that had Prachanda been to India, this expert would have lauded Prachanda as a new champion of Nepal-India bilateral ties.
The expert, would have done wisdom, had he been kind enough to talk on the marathon race that he and his colleagues make to Delhi, at time even uninvited.
And more so, this expert forgot that Prachanda spent a good chunk of his vibrating life in New Delhi and China knows this fact.
China, hopefully, is not that dull, which the expert understands perhaps, to take Prachanda at his face value more so when Prachanda immediately upon his return from China already expressed his keen desire to be in New Delhi.
China has thus reasons to suspect Prachanda's credentials.
Albeit, New Delhi could be "seduced" but not China and the Maoist bids are in progress to please Delhi.
If you please Shyam Saran, entire New Delhi is yours, as witnessed some years back.
The expert should have dwelt at length all these issues and enlightened us all but he didn't do so perhaps he just wanted to deride at China or at Prachanda or at best he could not go into that deep for "obvious" reasons.
The other expert, yes, he was a diplomat and a card holder of the same party as the previous speaker, talked sense.
He neither scolded Prachanda nor China. He did not talk even of India. What he talked was that he suggested all the parties to have a "coherent" foreign policy for Nepal which we lack.
He presented his views skillfully.
Expertise come only after studying the subjects. To study, one has to go to schools. And if you want to talk on foreign policy matters, study books on international relations, diplomacy and conduct between the nations.
It must have been too much for this expert who is in effect an economist and nothing more than that.