Nepal: Where West Went Wrong
It would not be wise to criticize only the policy of the “Democratic West” in Nepal more so of the United States since the over ambitious monarch overthrew a democratic regime only to be replaced by a regime that would be always remembered for its undemocratic acts.
However, if the Western policy is to be evaluated after approaching two years of the reinstatement of Loktantra, it would not be wrong to call that the system in vogue and thus the US policy too has failed miserably.
Though it is not that simple to pin point the mistakes the West made in Nepal, but in a recent democratic exercise with the so-called liberal communist party, the UML supporting tacitly the ex-rebels-the Maoists, by leaving the only Democratic Party- the Nepali Congress in tatters must have shocked the West that had ever supported the alliance. The intention of the Left is thus clear, which is just the beginning of the beginning, say experts.
In reality, the “Democratic West” had no option other than to support the so-called democratic forces in Nepal though it was predominantly RED to downsize the monarch who was hell bent on becoming an autocratic one though he claimed several times of having only democratic credentials. Enlightened men thus say that being a democrat rather depends on your acts not that you become a democrat pronouncing it several times. Self praise is no recommendation.
There was no point in supporting the monarch for the US or call it the West. But questions will always be asked in the condition: One day Nepal becomes prevalently RED, whether the West had options left than to put its weight behind the Red dominated alliance in Nepal or not?
Be that as it may, the Red factor in the alliance was miserably ignored by the West. Thus it is clear by now what justifies criticizing only the West. Add to this, that in theory the West is only concerned with the state of democracy in Nepal.
On the other hand, it is understood by all and sundry that criticizing India rather makes no sense because it has historically supported those regimes in Nepal that has ever remained subservient to its dictates and sermons. No matter a regime similar to the one in Bhutan resurrects here in the form of the Communists, make it no mistake India will have no objection to that as well. Thus, the Communists in Nepal only need to make it sure that they do not hurt India’s high stakes and interests in Nepal. In such a scenario China too will have no objection, say analysts further. Thus the loser by all means is the West.
Under the sun, people here in Nepal presently fear comparing the regime under King Gyanendra to that of nouveau monarch Girija Babu, but it is also true that even right inside the fortified walls people cannot say that King Gyanendra’s rule was better than the present one. The people are thus confused, so is the democratic West. King Gyanendra again loses in the credibility battle with his competitors currently enjoying the power set-up, because there is no option and people cannot just turn their face towards the sidelined monarch. The mistake King Gyanendra made was he talked more but did nothing concrete, politically speaking he could neither yield to the Indian dictates, perhaps that was the Himalayan blunder he committed.
The most interesting part of the discussion is that these days in private conversations in and among the diplomatic circles more so focus on the topic, better accept the dictatorship under King Gyanendra than under Comrade Prachanda. Poor West!