Is peace equivalent to the King's rule? Is Royal Nepal Army's success against Maoists is the King's success? Are political parties and rebel group similar? Are political parties supporting insurgency?
There are attempts to make people believe all the answers to these questions 'Yes'. But the reality is that most of the answers to these questions is NO. And I strongly believe blurring the border between many things stated above will not have a good result in future.
Here I present my views on each question and the difference in two things compared.
The King & the Peace
I agree that political leadership in past years didn't honestly try to solve the problem, and the King has for many times reiterated his commitment to restore peace in the country (after which he had said he would return democracy). That certainly shows the King's willingness for peace but that doesn't mean that he is the synonymous to peace. His honestly towards bringing peace could make him one or two step ahead of other but not the only one who can restore the peace in the country.
Royal Nepalese Army & Maoists
RNA claimed a grand success against the rebel group in Khara in Rukum where the insurgents lost more than 113 fighters.
Maoists claimed a grand success in Dolakha where they restrict army in the barrack keeping them busy in fire exchange while the other group brunt down offices and broke into district jail.
The propaganda: in first event, the rebel claimed death of more than five dozens armymen while in second event the army claimed successful retaliation that saw only two policemen killed. Certainly the media carried the army's version in both events due to censorship.
In anyway, the question is: Is army is successful due to the King's rule? Yes if you believe in 'no information is good' theory. And also, if the same army is capable of fighting against rebels why didn't that happened in past because the army were same. (Since the King was the supreme commander of the army, was he behind all these planning for power takeover?)
Political Parties & Rebel Group
The King told the people there are not only two group in the country - first those who want peace and other of those who want bloods. The first he said were with him and the second were those who criticized him.
The rebel group called political parties to join them. Some of the leaders of the political parties agreed that there could be strategically cooperation if needed.
It is no good.
The King is trying to make people believe those political parties favor rebels. And some leaders are talking without thinking of consequences.
They are different: one is fighting for democracy where everyone will be accommodated with people enjoying rights. The rebel group is fighting to establish their one-party 'democratic' rule. And more importantly unlike the King said, the political parties fall on the third group - those wanting peace but criticizing the King.
And to conclude, should fight for democracy be fight for republic?
There have been a considerable number of people who believe it should be. Seeing that the monarch twice assumed power dismissing democracy, the answer should be yes. Once there is republic, the danger for democracy's dismissal by the monarch will end.
But the alternative view is that which is quite more useful is to keep the monarch powerless as honorary head of the state. He should be given no power and his assets and budget should be transparent and his deeds publicly debated.
No comments:
Post a Comment