Testing time for patriotic Nepali people
Yuba Nath Lamsal
It was indeed a matter of pleasure for patriotic Nepali people when Prachanda and Jhalanath Khanal made a last hour deal to foil Indian design in the prime ministerial election. Maoist chairman Prachanda not only withdrew his candidacy from the race but his party—UCPN-Maoist— also backed Khanal to form a Maoist-UML coalition government. This move served as a surprise shock to New Delhi and their agents in Nepal simply because they failed in their attempt to install Nepali Congress-led pro-Indian government in Nepal. Still they have not given up their conspiracy and are now active to fail this new coalition. Not even a week has passed since the new prime minister was sworn in, Nepali Congress has already demanded the dissolution of this government ostensibly in the behest of external forces. The CPN-UML, too, is in internal imbroglio that is between the patriotic and pro-Indian elements within the party. At the behest of New Delhi, some of the UML leaders are working out to pull down the government led by the chairperson of their own party. This cannot be bigger irony than this. India was behind the delay in the formation of the new government even more than six months. India wanted to give continuity to the alliance that was suitable for New Delhi than for the people of Nepal. India had not been successful in this bid for more than six months. But it had been successful not to let other parties mainly the UCPN-Maoist— the largest party in parliament—to lead the coalition government simply because it has refused to toe New Delhi\'s line on domestic as well as foreign affairs. All previous sixteen rounds of prime ministerial election had failed to elect the prime minister. India applied all kinds of diplomatic or otherwise tactics to defeat the Maoist candidate in the prime ministerial election. At the same time, it also could not succeed to ensure victory of the Nepali Congress candidate. Even in the fresh round of election, India made a plan, under which the first and second round of elections would produce no results. In the third round, it had expected the victory of Nepali Congress leader for which pro-Indian force in the CPN-UML had been duly mobilized. This plan was designed by New Delhi in due consultation with the Nepali Congress, Madhesi parties and pro-Indian faction in the CPN-UML. However, the Maoists and a faction of the CPN-UML foiled this design in the last hour that paved the way for the formation of Khanal-led government, which is being dubbed as a patriotic coalition. This is a fitting reply to India that has been interfering in Nepal\'s internal affairs and also the forces that serve Indian interests more than the interest of Nepal. Right after the Sugauli Treaty Nepal has been struggling hard to safeguard its national identity and independence. The Sugauli Treaty was a symbol of Nepal\'s humiliation as British dictated its terms on Nepal in the name of the treaty. The treaty was signed following Nepal\'s shocking defeat with British colonial power that had already gobbled up entire South Asian continent except Nepal. But Nepal somehow defended its independence despite ceding a large portion of its territory to British colonial rulers and also compromising on some crucial matters. In other words, this was treaty not signed between the two countries but imposed by British colonial rulers upon Nepal. Some people even describe this as an event that marked the beginning of Nepal being turned into semi-colonial state. This treaty was revised later which accepted Nepal\'s independent and sovereign status. However, t he treaty became automatically invalid after the British colonial rulers left India and India was divided into two countries. At that time Nepal should have claimed its lost territories but failed to do so. Since the present India is not the successor of British raj, it has no right to occupy the land British had conquered. During the partition, it had been agreed that there would be two countries—Hindustan and Pakistan— out of British ruled India. But India started violating the agreement made during the partition from the very beginning as it called itself as India rather than Hindustan. But Pakistan respected the agreement in its letter and spirit. It had been agreed that neither Hindustan nor Pakistan would claim to be the successor of British India. The New Delhi defied the agreement to call itself India simply to claim to be the successor of British India. This is the case of India\'s non-compliance with the international agreement which raises the question about New Delhi\'s trustworthiness. The breach of trust and agreement has been more often with India right from its birth, which has been well reflected in the relationship with all its neighbours as well as others. India\'s claim to be the successor of the British colonial rule means that New Delhi wants to assert the right to pursue colonial policy with its neighbours. And New Delhi has been pursuing the same old colonial policy with regard to its neighbours despite it being independent from British colony. The relationship with Nepal, Bhutan and some other smaller countries in South Asia clearly reflects this colonial mentality of India. Nepal is sufferingmore from this attitude of India and its continued interference in our domestic affairs. As the Sugauli Treaty signed between Nepal and the British raj became invalid in 1947 after British colony ended in India, New Delhi adopted even tighter and more hegemonic and expansionist policy with Nepal. When the Rana oligarchic regime was on its way out in 1950 in the face of popular uprising, India forced the beleaguered regime to sign a treaty that was worse than the earlier one. The Rana Prime Minister, whose administration had been in danger because of the popular unrest, quietly signed the treaty with the hope that New Delhi would come to its rescue and protect the oligarchic regime. New Delhi had also assured the Rana oligarchic regime to protect it from the popular uprising in exchange for 1950 treaty. Although the name of this treaty is the 1950 treaty of peace and friendship, in reality it is the most unfriendly treaty that has imposed India\'s terms on Nepal. Nepali parties have often described it as an unequal treaty and have demanded its abrogation. But India has consistently rejected any idea and demand concerning the abrogation of the treaty. Unfortunately, some of our political parties and leaders have echoed India\'s voice stating that the 1950 treaty was at the best interest of both Nepal and India. The 1950 treaty is not, at all, in the interest of Nepal. It has encroached upon our sovereign rights. The defense of the 1950 treaty by any Nepali is an act of treachery because the abrogation of 1950 treaty is a must to reach a bilateral accord with India on equal footing. Any patriotic Nepali cannot support this treaty. Any political party that opposes the 1950 treaty and demands its abrogation is termed as an anti-Indian force. New Delhi plots against the patriotic force of Nepal and makes every possible effort to ensure that the patriotic force may not go to power. For this, India applies any kind of tactics—moral or immoral, legal or illegal and diplomatic or otherwise—which was clearly evident during the prime ministerial election in the past. Although a strong faction of CPN-UML now advocates India\'s interest, this party, too, had opposed the 1950 treaty in the past. As long as CPN-UML opposed 1950 treaty, it always remained in the black list of India and New Delhi did everything to weaken the CPN-UML and to prevent it from going to power. Even when the CPN-UML won people\'s support in the election and emerged as the largest party in parliament, serious attempts had been made not to allow the UML to form its government. But the designs to prevent the UML were exhausted and UML finally formed a minority government headed by Manmohan Adhikari as the first communist prime minister in Nepal. However, it was ousted from power in nine months. This government for the first time in the history of Nepal had frankly and strongly put forth a proposal on the negotiating table with India for the review and change in the 1950 treaty, which irked New Delhi. Indian hand was well perceived behind the fall of UML minority government in nine months. Later, the CPN-UML made a U-turn in its India policy and it accorded priority to power than patriotism. The CPN-UML thought that it cannot go to power without India\'s support. Since then, it completely stopped anti-India rhetoric and started appeasing New Delhi. The CPN-UML found an opportune moment to please India at the time of the ratification of Mahakali Treaty, which marked a big shift in UML\'s India policy. Since then, CPN-UML has found space in India\'s good book and it has been pursuing this policy even now. As UML turned out to be a pro-Indian force, its popular base started trembling. People of Nepal are basically patriotic and they do not like pro-Indian force. This was well reflected in the Constituent Assembly election. The Nepali Congress and CPN-UML fared poorly in the election whereas the CPN-Maoist emerged as the largest force. The victory of the CPN-Maoist was an endorsement of its agenda including its patriotic stance. New Delhi had expected that the Maoists would change their policy on India after they went to power. However, the Maoists continued with their patriotic stance. This is the reason why the Maoists had to be out of power through a drama staged by India. When in government, the Maoists repeated their demands to scrap 1950 treaty and reach a new treaty with India on the basis of mutual equality. This could not have been tolerated by India and its agents in Nepal. The army chief issue was just a pretext of a drama that had long been rehearsed to oust the Maoists from power. These are some of the instances that confirm India\'s naked interference and aggression in Nepal. But, instead of countering this aggression, some of our parties are trying to further consolidate Indian interference. The present crisis that has appeared in Nepal\'s political landscape is the result of the tussle between the patriotic forces and pro-Indian elements. But the patriotic forces need to be united and collectively counter and foil Indian designs and also to defeat the Indian agents in Nepal to safeguard Nepal\'s national independence and national interests. This is the testing time for patriotic forces of Nepal to safeguard their sovereignty, national independence and identity. The global experiences have shown that patriotic forces always prevail and Nepali patriotic forces would also prevail against traitors, conspirators and collaborators.
It was indeed a matter of pleasure for patriotic Nepali people when Prachanda and Jhalanath Khanal made a last hour deal to foil Indian design in the prime ministerial election. Maoist chairman Prachanda not only withdrew his candidacy from the race but his party—UCPN-Maoist— also backed Khanal to form a Maoist-UML coalition government. This move served as a surprise shock to New Delhi and their agents in Nepal simply because they failed in their attempt to install Nepali Congress-led pro-Indian government in Nepal. Still they have not given up their conspiracy and are now active to fail this new coalition. Not even a week has passed since the new prime minister was sworn in, Nepali Congress has already demanded the dissolution of this government ostensibly in the behest of external forces. The CPN-UML, too, is in internal imbroglio that is between the patriotic and pro-Indian elements within the party. At the behest of New Delhi, some of the UML leaders are working out to pull down the government led by the chairperson of their own party. This cannot be bigger irony than this. India was behind the delay in the formation of the new government even more than six months. India wanted to give continuity to the alliance that was suitable for New Delhi than for the people of Nepal. India had not been successful in this bid for more than six months. But it had been successful not to let other parties mainly the UCPN-Maoist— the largest party in parliament—to lead the coalition government simply because it has refused to toe New Delhi\'s line on domestic as well as foreign affairs. All previous sixteen rounds of prime ministerial election had failed to elect the prime minister. India applied all kinds of diplomatic or otherwise tactics to defeat the Maoist candidate in the prime ministerial election. At the same time, it also could not succeed to ensure victory of the Nepali Congress candidate. Even in the fresh round of election, India made a plan, under which the first and second round of elections would produce no results. In the third round, it had expected the victory of Nepali Congress leader for which pro-Indian force in the CPN-UML had been duly mobilized. This plan was designed by New Delhi in due consultation with the Nepali Congress, Madhesi parties and pro-Indian faction in the CPN-UML. However, the Maoists and a faction of the CPN-UML foiled this design in the last hour that paved the way for the formation of Khanal-led government, which is being dubbed as a patriotic coalition. This is a fitting reply to India that has been interfering in Nepal\'s internal affairs and also the forces that serve Indian interests more than the interest of Nepal. Right after the Sugauli Treaty Nepal has been struggling hard to safeguard its national identity and independence. The Sugauli Treaty was a symbol of Nepal\'s humiliation as British dictated its terms on Nepal in the name of the treaty. The treaty was signed following Nepal\'s shocking defeat with British colonial power that had already gobbled up entire South Asian continent except Nepal. But Nepal somehow defended its independence despite ceding a large portion of its territory to British colonial rulers and also compromising on some crucial matters. In other words, this was treaty not signed between the two countries but imposed by British colonial rulers upon Nepal. Some people even describe this as an event that marked the beginning of Nepal being turned into semi-colonial state. This treaty was revised later which accepted Nepal\'s independent and sovereign status. However, t he treaty became automatically invalid after the British colonial rulers left India and India was divided into two countries. At that time Nepal should have claimed its lost territories but failed to do so. Since the present India is not the successor of British raj, it has no right to occupy the land British had conquered. During the partition, it had been agreed that there would be two countries—Hindustan and Pakistan— out of British ruled India. But India started violating the agreement made during the partition from the very beginning as it called itself as India rather than Hindustan. But Pakistan respected the agreement in its letter and spirit. It had been agreed that neither Hindustan nor Pakistan would claim to be the successor of British India. The New Delhi defied the agreement to call itself India simply to claim to be the successor of British India. This is the case of India\'s non-compliance with the international agreement which raises the question about New Delhi\'s trustworthiness. The breach of trust and agreement has been more often with India right from its birth, which has been well reflected in the relationship with all its neighbours as well as others. India\'s claim to be the successor of the British colonial rule means that New Delhi wants to assert the right to pursue colonial policy with its neighbours. And New Delhi has been pursuing the same old colonial policy with regard to its neighbours despite it being independent from British colony. The relationship with Nepal, Bhutan and some other smaller countries in South Asia clearly reflects this colonial mentality of India. Nepal is sufferingmore from this attitude of India and its continued interference in our domestic affairs. As the Sugauli Treaty signed between Nepal and the British raj became invalid in 1947 after British colony ended in India, New Delhi adopted even tighter and more hegemonic and expansionist policy with Nepal. When the Rana oligarchic regime was on its way out in 1950 in the face of popular uprising, India forced the beleaguered regime to sign a treaty that was worse than the earlier one. The Rana Prime Minister, whose administration had been in danger because of the popular unrest, quietly signed the treaty with the hope that New Delhi would come to its rescue and protect the oligarchic regime. New Delhi had also assured the Rana oligarchic regime to protect it from the popular uprising in exchange for 1950 treaty. Although the name of this treaty is the 1950 treaty of peace and friendship, in reality it is the most unfriendly treaty that has imposed India\'s terms on Nepal. Nepali parties have often described it as an unequal treaty and have demanded its abrogation. But India has consistently rejected any idea and demand concerning the abrogation of the treaty. Unfortunately, some of our political parties and leaders have echoed India\'s voice stating that the 1950 treaty was at the best interest of both Nepal and India. The 1950 treaty is not, at all, in the interest of Nepal. It has encroached upon our sovereign rights. The defense of the 1950 treaty by any Nepali is an act of treachery because the abrogation of 1950 treaty is a must to reach a bilateral accord with India on equal footing. Any patriotic Nepali cannot support this treaty. Any political party that opposes the 1950 treaty and demands its abrogation is termed as an anti-Indian force. New Delhi plots against the patriotic force of Nepal and makes every possible effort to ensure that the patriotic force may not go to power. For this, India applies any kind of tactics—moral or immoral, legal or illegal and diplomatic or otherwise—which was clearly evident during the prime ministerial election in the past. Although a strong faction of CPN-UML now advocates India\'s interest, this party, too, had opposed the 1950 treaty in the past. As long as CPN-UML opposed 1950 treaty, it always remained in the black list of India and New Delhi did everything to weaken the CPN-UML and to prevent it from going to power. Even when the CPN-UML won people\'s support in the election and emerged as the largest party in parliament, serious attempts had been made not to allow the UML to form its government. But the designs to prevent the UML were exhausted and UML finally formed a minority government headed by Manmohan Adhikari as the first communist prime minister in Nepal. However, it was ousted from power in nine months. This government for the first time in the history of Nepal had frankly and strongly put forth a proposal on the negotiating table with India for the review and change in the 1950 treaty, which irked New Delhi. Indian hand was well perceived behind the fall of UML minority government in nine months. Later, the CPN-UML made a U-turn in its India policy and it accorded priority to power than patriotism. The CPN-UML thought that it cannot go to power without India\'s support. Since then, it completely stopped anti-India rhetoric and started appeasing New Delhi. The CPN-UML found an opportune moment to please India at the time of the ratification of Mahakali Treaty, which marked a big shift in UML\'s India policy. Since then, CPN-UML has found space in India\'s good book and it has been pursuing this policy even now. As UML turned out to be a pro-Indian force, its popular base started trembling. People of Nepal are basically patriotic and they do not like pro-Indian force. This was well reflected in the Constituent Assembly election. The Nepali Congress and CPN-UML fared poorly in the election whereas the CPN-Maoist emerged as the largest force. The victory of the CPN-Maoist was an endorsement of its agenda including its patriotic stance. New Delhi had expected that the Maoists would change their policy on India after they went to power. However, the Maoists continued with their patriotic stance. This is the reason why the Maoists had to be out of power through a drama staged by India. When in government, the Maoists repeated their demands to scrap 1950 treaty and reach a new treaty with India on the basis of mutual equality. This could not have been tolerated by India and its agents in Nepal. The army chief issue was just a pretext of a drama that had long been rehearsed to oust the Maoists from power. These are some of the instances that confirm India\'s naked interference and aggression in Nepal. But, instead of countering this aggression, some of our parties are trying to further consolidate Indian interference. The present crisis that has appeared in Nepal\'s political landscape is the result of the tussle between the patriotic forces and pro-Indian elements. But the patriotic forces need to be united and collectively counter and foil Indian designs and also to defeat the Indian agents in Nepal to safeguard Nepal\'s national independence and national interests. This is the testing time for patriotic forces of Nepal to safeguard their sovereignty, national independence and identity. The global experiences have shown that patriotic forces always prevail and Nepali patriotic forces would also prevail against traitors, conspirators and collaborators.
Comments
Post a Comment