News, Views From Nepal

Yuba Nath Lamsal Some people tend to portray Nepal’s present scenario as the syndrome of a failed state. But we should not arrive at such a hasty conclusion. Before arriving at a conclusion of such a crucial question, we must analyze historical, cultural, social, political and economic dynamics of Nepal.   Given the geo-political and geo-strategic position with which Nepal has been able to survive and preserve its national and sovereign identity and status, it would be superficial to conclude that Nepal is on the verge of sliding into the status of a failed state. It is true that Nepal’s current political situation is very fluid and in the state of flux. Almost every country in the world has experienced such an environment at certain point of history. Even the big powers of today had undergone many ups and down and situation similar to what Nepal is facing at present. The United States of America, Britain, Russia, France, Germany, China and India, came out of the dire stat

Yuba Nath Lamsal The keenly watched parliamentary election of Japan was held in December 16 in which the conservative Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) won a thumping majority to form the government of its own. The return of the LDP to power in Japan marks a sea change not only in Japanese policies, but also in the international politics. The election had been seen as a fight between liberals and conservatives in Japanese politics. The victory of conservative LDP signals that Tokyo is likely to adopt ultra-rightist policies at home, while in the international front the new government may join the bandwagon of Western Hawkish club and bring more tension in the Asia and the Pacific region. In other words, the results of recent Japan’s general election mark the return of the agenda of 1930 decade—nationalism and militarism. The determination that the LDP has made public during the election and earlier that Tokyo would be more assertive in Asia and also in the world to protect its pr

Yuba Nath Lamsal The state is in itself an authoritarian institution. The state can never be democratic—whether it is in Nepal or elsewhere including Europe and the United States that boast to have the best democratic system and institutions. The nature of the state usually is to rule on people and make people obey its decisions and diktats quietly and in a docile manner. It is said that the state can never act for the interests of the general mass. But it is the popular movement and pressure that make the states accept and respect people’s rights and freedom. Nowhere in the world has there been any example where rulers have voluntarily relinquished power. Only popular pressures have forced the tyrants to bow down paving the way for participatory democracy in the world with full realization of individual liberty and rights in participating in governance and decision-making of the state. Rights and freedom do not come without sacrifice and costs. People must make sacrifice fo

Yuba Nath Lamsal   The issue concerning the observance of the diplomatic code of conduct has come to the fore more openly and prominently in recent days. This issue has come to the light especially after the Deputy Prime Minister Narayan Kaji Shrestha, who also holds the portfolio of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, spoke more loudly in public objecting to the meeting between the President Dr Ram Baran Yadav and a leader of India’s ruling Congress party, Karan Singh, without prior information to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   If this was the case, Nepal’s president has definitely breached diplomatic norms, for which the Head of State must either clarify it before the people stating the reasons and circumstances or apologize expressing his commitment not to repeat it any longer in future. If the accusation of the Deputy Prime Minister was not true, the President still has to make it clear in public so that people will judge who is right and who is wrong. In both the way, pe