|
|
|
  |
| Sunday, 17 April 2005 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Himalayan blunder He has often been a victim of Nepal's volatile politics; he's been sacked thrice as prime minister. This time around, King Gyanendra not only relieved him of his post but also put him under house arrest. But the suave and erudite former prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba remains convinced that there can be no alternative to democracy. In an interview in Kathmandu, he spoke to Lalita Panicker about the way forward for the isolated Himalayan kingdom: Did you foresee that the king might suspend democracy? No, I was stunned. I never thought that he would crack down on democracy like this. It is an anti-human rights move. God knows what he was thinking. I was sacked even though I tried very hard to cooperate with him. There is no logic to his action. All I can say that it is such a severe blow to Nepal and Nepalis. It is a monumental setback for us. What do you think will happen now? There is no choice, he has to restore democracy. This is the endgame. His move is extremely unpopular, no one approves of it, no one supports him, not one person. Nepal is being hurt from every side, the king and the Maoists. This was once a joyful place, now there is an air of fear. We had such high hopes for democracy, now it has all turned to ashes. You called for all political parties to come together and work for a common agenda. What are the salient points of this? The crucial one, of course, is the restoration of democracy, the restoration of the rights of all political leaders. Today, we have a situation where the only way we can counter insurgency is through democracy. Since the king's move, the Maoists' morale is very high. He has pitted himself against the political parties. Given that all the political parties used to bicker in the past, who will lead this coalition of political parties? I have no objections to anyone leading it. Democracy is far more important than petty rivalries. Let democracy come back first, we will fight for political space later. Why do you single out Nepali parties for fighting with each other? Dissension is a part of democracy. I think our democracy is far less dynastic than India's. Has the king made any attempt to talk to you? No, he has not. Will you make common cause with the Maoists and if so whom will you speak to? The problem is that they believe in violent means and we do not. There can be no militaristic solution. There is no consensus among the Maoists themselves. I hear from time to time that they have severe differences among themselves. But I guess when the time comes they will send the right man. They want power-sharing, we are not averse to that but without violence. There are many genuine problems in Nepal, poverty, untouchability. These are the breeding grounds for terror. Would you say that the rise of the Maoists has been because of the failure of the political parties? We did not have enough time. Thirteen years is not a long time for democracy to mature. But democracy brought all the simmering problems to the surface. We achieved many things, education, private investment, liberalisation. But, you see, large parts of our terrain are inaccessible, it's difficult to spread development there. This has been ideal for the terrorists. But expectations were very high, people wanted more. Maybe we did not deliver enough. What would you say to the idea of an external party mediation to solve the conflict? We must resolve things internally, why bring in an outside party? Is Pakistan fishing in troubled waters here by offering arms after India shut off the tap. Hasn't Nepal always played India off against Pakistan? No, no. There is no anti-India feeling here. Pakistan will not meddle here. I haven't read about this Pakistani offer as I have been under house arrest. The Maoists have spoken about a constituent assembly. What do you feel? What are they talking about. If their idea is to usher in a one-party communist rule, they can't have it. I wanted to discuss these issues openly but then I was sacked. Do you have any insight into what might have motivated the king to do this? He claims he did it for the good of democracy but he has plunged the nation into a crisis. I was blamed for being close to him. There are many around him who enjoy power without accountability, many advisers. I don't know whom he listens to. India is a close neighbour, yet he has not talked to any of its leaders. Do you envisage any role for the king in a future democratic set-up? He can be a constitutional monarch. But first he has to evolve a common position with all the political parties. We are steadily going downhill economically. The NGOs are leaving, there is flight of capital, there is no tourism. We are in really deep trouble. Our people are suffering, we have fallen in international esteem. There has to be much greater international pressure. Have the Indians been able to help in any way? Not really, but I suppose the arms suspension does help. Manmohan Singh is a very fine person but there is not much he can do at present. Courtesy: Times of India |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
