Home >> South Asia >> Nepal & Bhutan

     Email   Print 

Does Nepal Need Outside Interference

Bhuwan Thapaliya - 12/7/2005

Political forecasting, always a dodgy business, has grown even more difficult in Nepal during the past few weeks. For a start, soothsayers have had to cope over the unpredictable moves of the royal government, the serpentine ploys of the political parties, new-fangled attitudes of the Maoists, and the vagueness of foreign diplomacy.

If all these uncertainties cause Nepalese politics to grow cautious, it could make the flagging expression drop ever more because this status quo, more than most, has been driven by political optimism.

Here and there, a flash of hope can occasionally be seen -- but it rapidly disappears into a new wave of political hegemony.

Moreover, in a statement released Dec. 2, Maoist supremo, " Prachanda," said his party extended the ceasefire, responding to what he termed as national, as well as international requests.

But will his fine words be matched by deeds? Diplomats in Nepal remain politely skeptical. They argue that it will take a long time for old habits and structures to change.

But some things are changing. The spokesperson of the U.S. embassy, Robert Hugins, stated that there is no military solution to the Maoist's conflict at a time when the king, in his message to the nation and people last Friday, said that the country's security situation has improved and has also paved way for the municipal and general elections.

The bigger risk may lie in rushing into a new poll, without trying to fix some of the underlying problems that make the system fail repeatedly. Another cycle of elections and disillusionment could fatally damage the prospects of democracy and of rational reform.

This has further raised the fire of political uncertainty in Nepal. America and India, the two main allies, are jointly working together to establish peace and democracy in Nepal. However, it has been rightly observed by some critics that the colonial history of the past furnishes specific instances, when foreign intervention has been utilized as an instrument of political exploitation for the benefit of the mother country.

Such exploitative use of foreign diplomacy has caused a bitter history for developing countries, and who knows? -- it might create a far more bitter history for Nepal, too. If one makes a realistic study of the lines along which foreign interference developed, one cannot help seeing, after a careful political analysis, that a process of exploitation has already set in.

But the supporters of foreign intervention into Nepali problems are saying that foreign diplomatic intervention is useful to break the vicious cycle of Nepalese politics and its political imperfections.

But the grave question of the Nepali masses is this: Is it crucial, from the point of its favorable effect, for the county's long-term political equilibrium?

Despite some advantages, we are convinced with the fact that the free flow of foreign intervention is not in the best interest of Nepal. It is feared, not only for political reasons, but also on social grounds. There is a great fear that it may lead to the loss of our independence.

In particular, common Nepalese remain allergic to this idea of foreign intervention into Nepalese problems. Nevertheless, they want democracy and peace, but probably not from the exploitative use of foreign intervention.

They want the triangular forces of Nepal (king, political parties and the Maoists) to craft a forward way out, and save Nepal before the exploitative tooth of foreign intercession masticates the country's core.