A fool's unqualified defamatory statement on Nepal/ "Logjam in Nepal" by Ashok Mehta

[Ashutosh Shrivastav]

Ashok, Shyam and Sukh Deo are the least qualified people to make any comment about Nepal.  These ignorants should be summarily ignored.  There are many articles floating about these little known notorious guys in the internet too.  Better to take care of fragile and plagued Bhaarat glued in internal conflicts created by Bhaatiya Congress before making an unqualified and erroneous statement.  These unqualified people have been destroying the very foundation of Bhaarat and for the past few years vulture-eyeing in Nepal.

 

Ashok is apparently a retd. major general of Gurkha regiment; perhaps he forgot the strength of Gurkhas which saved Bhaarat from becoming a colony of Pakistan in Kargil War.  May the fool is blessed with wisdom.

 

Review Nepal Policy?  Does he know what "two pillar" theory is?

 

 

"Yada Yada Hi Dharmasya, Glanirva Bhavathi Bharatha, Abhyuthanam Adharmaysya, Tadatmanam Srijami Aham. Praritranaya Sadhunam Vinashaya Cha Dushkritam Dharamasansthapnaya Sambhavami Yuge-Yuge." Lord Krishna in Bhagavad Gita (Chapter IV-7)

 

Sincerely,

 

Ashutosh Shrivastav

Secretary General

United Nationalist Nepalse (UNN)

A Non Profit Advocacy Organization

www.unnepal.org

_____________________________________________________________________________________

This email/fax message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this email/fax is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all paper and electronic copies of the original message.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

From: John Kelleher [mailto:jmkell...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 9:34 AM
To: UnitedNation...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: (UNN) Fw: "Logjam in Nepal" by Ashok Mehta

 

 

I would beg to differ with Ashok Mehta, on multiple grounds.  "A high-level India-backed dialogue must be initiated to end the political impasse. Many Nepalis want India to reinvent the Delhi declaration for resumption of the political process, drafting the Constitution and integration of Maoist combatants with the security forces."  What?  Mehta's circle of Nepali contacts must be quite limited indeed if this is his honest assessment of Nepali sentiment on the matter.  Mehta speaks of the fact that "India needs to review its Nepal policy" - I see Indian journalists, pundits and commentators making this same statement again and again, and always they do what Mr. Mehta has done in the article attached below: the proceed to restate the principal assumptions that have underpinned India's failed Nepal policy since 2005.

 

Mr. Mehta continues to speak of New Delhi's brokerage of the 2005 12-point agreement as though it marked a watershed of successful diplomacy and the initiation of a credible peace process.  What Mr. Mehta simply will not admit is that this action, quite aside from being a despicable and cowardly act of betrayal against a government with whom India enjoyed full and cordial diplomatic exchange, was also the initiating miscalculation in India's present policy debacle in Nepal.

 

Mehta freely admits that "New Delhi’s calculations about Maoists have gone terribly wrong, partly due to misreading their intentions and capability but mainly through inept diplomacy."  This much is self-evident to all concerned players.  Yet Mr. Mehta proceeds to reiterate some of these self-same miscaculations in his own treatment, such as the oft-repeated myth that the Maoists "have had to abandon the people’s war as power, they realised, could not be captured through a military solution."  They have done nothing of the sort, and any close reading of their own actions and statements reinforces the view that the Maoists have never ceased to regard themselves as being engaged in "Peoples Warfare."  Their emphasis at this point on building a popular front, rather than on armed revolt, does not mean that the Maoists have ever surrendered the capability or intent of reverting to the latter course.  These are not two separate paths for the Maoists to pick from: armed warfare and the consolidation of a popular front represent two levers within the Maoists's "Peoples Warfare" strategy.

 

Mr. Mehta is grossly naive to think that a special political mission from Mr. Shyam Saran in 2009 could have helped the Maoists' "political transformation" or to presume that the Maobadis can be taught "to cohabit with India without becoming like the United Marxist-Leninist Party."  If the UCPN-M ever learned to become amenable to Indian interests within the context of a multiparty competitive liberal democracy, would that not make them just like the CPN-UML?  Do not the Maoists explicitly qualify themselves as "antirevisionist" Communists, and have they not condemned Nepal's mainstream "bourgeoise" communist parties for their accomodation with liberal democracy?

 

I would agree with Mr. Mehta insofar as India should maintain cordial and correct relations with the Government of Nepal, irresepctive of whichever party heads the government.  The Maoists cannot be effectively sidelined in a legislature where they hold the mosts seats.  The damage has already been done: the Maoists were idiotically invited into Kathmandu in 2006 and now that they are in, they cannot be ignored.  They need to be dealt with in an intelligent manner, although this does not mean that India should coddle the party or turn a dignified blind eye on its manifestly evident intentions.

 

The false premise of Mr. Mehta's argument is that the Maoists can be mainstreamed in a liberal parliamentary framework and that India can and should play a guiding role to enable this.  Even more alarming is his supposition that, should New Delhi be unable or unwilling to play this role in the future, custodianship of the peace process should be turned over to Norway, whose governing Socialist Party is ridiculously Maoist-friendly.  Mr. Mehta's reputation precedes him: he is one of the "leading lights" among Indian foreign and security policy commentators and his analysis often heralds the official attitude of the GOI itself.  Yet if this is the kind of sloppy, lazy-minded thinking that is going in to New Delhi's recalibration of its Nepal policy, then my blood runs cold to think of the future of both India and Nepal.

 

--- John K.

 

 

---

From: Misra <mis...@ntc.net.np>
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;@smtp1.ntc.net.np
Sent: Wed, September 1, 2010 3:01:53 AM
Subject: (UNN) Fw: Emailing: The Pioneer Online Edition

 



Wednesday, September 1, 2010 Error! Filename not specified.New Delhi Error! Filename not specified.Today's Issue	Home Error! Filename not specified.ePaper
Error! Filename not specified.	The new look Pioneer [          ] [Search]
City    Nation    Edit    Op-Ed    Business    World    VivaCity    Avenues    Sports    Columnists    Forecast    Editor's Mail
STATE EDITIONS | Bhopal   Bhubaneswar   Ranchi   Kochi   Lucknow   Chandigarh  Dehradun	SUNDAY PIONEER  |  Agenda   Foray

 

EDITS | Wednesday, September 1, 2010 | Email | Print | Error! Filename not specified.| Back   Logjam in Nepal ASHOK K MEHTA Shyam Saran’s recent visit to Kathmandu to try and break the political deadlock has pleased nobody. India needs to review its Nepal policy The question being asked in Nepal is what on earth made former Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran suddenly descend on Kathmandu. A former Ambassador to Nepal, the erudite Mr Saran has been India’s pointperson on climate change and the India-US civil nuclear agreement and, therefore, not been following the mundane events of a power struggle in Kathmandu. He arrived early last month unannounced as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s special envoy to Nepal, a few days ahead of the fourth round of musical chairs for the elusive post of Prime Minister. The job has been vacant since Mr Madhav Kumar Nepal quit the office in response to the Maoist demand to facilitate the formation of a national unity Government. Nepal’s Foreign Minister Sujata Koirala said she knew nothing about Mr Saran’s visit and presumed it must be a private one. New Delhi’s good intentions to help in consensus-building to break the political impasse were badly played in Kathmandu where the level and intensity of anti-Indianism has reached its peak. The Maoists observe that India as usual was up to no good (euphemism for interfering in Nepal’s internal affairs) in trying to block their party from forming a Government. As Foreign Secretary, Mr Saran prepared the ground for the historic Delhi Agreement in 2005 which brought the seven-party alliance and Maoists on one platform to dislodge the monarchy. In less than six months, the 250-year-old monarchy became history. What 10 years of people’s war failed to achieve, 19 days of peaceful protests did in restoring power to the people. As in 1950 and 1990, India was once again central to the historic change underway in Nepal since 2005. Nepal has been a big mess ever since the Maoists lost power in mid-2009 in what they saw as an India-mentored coup d’etat. Maoists regard India as enemy number one at least through their words and actions. New Delhi’s calculations about Maoists have gone terribly wrong, partly due to misreading their intentions and capability but mainly through inept diplomacy. Having first erred over their electoral success, India failed to engage the Maoists to wean them away from their anti-India stance. Instead it wrote off the Maoists as a bad job rather than helping their political transformation. One full year of the peace process was wasted supporting the Madhav Kumar Nepal (Maoists call him Madhav Kumar India)-led anti-Maoist coalition Government in the hope that Maoists would mend their ways without providing them with adequate political security and safeguards while risking a political transformation. They were engaged periodically by Indian intelligence rather than the political establishment. Mr Saran should have been appointed special envoy in 2009 to lock the Maoists in a sustained dialogue — backchannel as well as on Track 1 and 2. In public perception, India is seen to have played a negative role in destabilising the peace process it helped put in place. Sanjiv Upadhyaya's recent book The Raj Lives on — India in Nepal has asserted that whoever rules Nepal has to secure India’s nod and keep its legitimate security concerns in mind. Every Prime Minister except Mr Pushpa Kamal Dahal has made India his first port of call. The Maoists have sought to ‘look beyond India’ and regain their sovereign space even if that means giving some of it to China. Nepal has already survived one constitutional crisis — extending the longevity of the Constituent Assembly by one year beyond May 28. The once most promising peace process is deadlocked with a caretaker Government, five failed rounds of voting to elect a Prime Minister, a brewing financial crisis pending presentation of the Budget and growing controversy over the seventh extension to the United Nations Mission in Nepal whose term expires on September 15. Public disillusionment with the political parties over industrial and business stagnation is rising as Nepal becomes a flailing state, unable to bridge the trust deficit between the revolutionary romanticism of the Maoists and the democratic dogmas of the Opposition. The last two years have generated lessons for all, most notably the Maoists and India. The Maoists have had to abandon the people’s war as power, they realised, could not be captured through a military solution. The ‘last battle’ fought in May this year from the streets through mass mobilisation was also lost, but this time due to lack of people’s support. On the other hand, the battle they have won most impressively is through the ballot when they were voted as the single largest party in elections to the Constituent Assembly. The message is clear: The route to political power is via multi-party democracy and not through power garb. The lesson the Maoists must learn is that looking beyond India carries risks and costs and is not a viable option as King Birendra discovered unhappily in 1988-89 while importing arms clandestinely from China in violation of a gentleman’s agreement. It led to the fall of absolute monarchy and restoration of multi-party democracy. In the world of realpolitik, Maoists must lean to cohabit with India without becoming like the United Marxist-Leninist Party. On its part, New Delhi has realised (one hopes) that the Maoists cannot be isolated and without them there is no peace process. The Maoists are the choice of the people and they cannot be ignored. India has to manage its relationship with the new political force in Nepal and help bring it back into the peace process through a power-sharing agreement. Similarly preventing them from forming a Government is not an option. Time is running out and the growing political instability could spiral out of control. A high-level India-backed dialogue must be initiated to end the political impasse. Many Nepalis want India to reinvent the Delhi declaration for resumption of the political process, drafting the Constitution and integration of Maoist combatants with the security forces. A blueprint of a new comprehensive peace agreement has already been worked out by the non-Maoist political parties in Nepal. It requires some tweaking to ensure it is implementable in a time-bound, event-specific plan. New Delhi’s awkward relations with Maoists should become a thing of the past. If India is unable or unwilling to broker a fresh peace agreement, it must allow a third country, say Norway and United Nations, to do so. Persisting with a stalemate is an invitation to disaster and hence inimical to India’s best interests in Nepal. Email | Print | Rate: ( )1( )2( )3( )4( )5
Post Comment
COMMENTS BOARD ::

 

Error! Filename not specified.Error! Filename not specified.Error! Filename not specified.Error! Filename not specified.Error! Filename not specified.Error! Filename not specified.

© CMYK Printech Ltd. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited. Email Pioneer Syndication Services at in...@dailypioneer.com for reprinting rights | Email comments to feed...@dailypioneer.com

 

__._,_._____,_._,___