The mini-uproar, so to speak, provoked by the statement (on Mahakali) of British Parliamentary Undersecretary Liam Fox is undoubtedly an opportunity to gauge the naivete and worse still, the hypocrisy of the politicians and ultra-sensitive commentators who normally thrive, somewhat magnificently, in raising issues of lesser or no importance to the country. The Fox observation regarding the Nepal-India Treaty on Integrated Development of Mahakali River has been condemned by some as a 'blatant interference' by Britain in what is essentially an internal matter of Nepal. First of all, the visiting British politician's remarks have to be judged in the context of the begging bowl diplomacy which Nepal has been involved in since a long time and secondly, in the context of the foreign investment which this and all previous governments, including the one formed by the CPN-UML, said was a sine quo non for the kind of economic development Nepal needs not only to alleviate poverty but also to maintain a tolerably decent standard of living. The earlier we realise that it is far more profitable to be honest than lose the credibility for short-term political gains, the better for all of us. Granted the Deuba government is obliged to satisfy everybody in the country that the Mahakali Treaty does, in every sense of the term, safeguard the vital economic and security interest of Nepal before it expects endorsement in parliament as decreed by the constitution. But to accuse it of inviting foreign intervention to tilt the balance in its favour amounts to an indirect admission of inferiority, if not guilty, complex. As an official representative of Her Britannic Majesty's government - and without question a well-wisher of Nepal - Fox only said what he thought would be appropriate. One can argue that he may have volunteered what he did without sufficient understanding of the real issues in question, but to disregard the implications of his statement would be thoroughly detrimental to Nepal as a nation. For, as long as Nepal needs external assistance, there is no avoiding the inevitability of certain dose of 'friendly advise' from the foreigners. Either we should be in a position to say 'no' to what is, in essence, a subsidy of sorts to bolster the pace of progress or we should be intelligent enough to grasp the mood and mentality of the donor nations or agencies specialising in outright grants and loans. Mahakali is only a part of the investment regime as a whole. Many more projects and programmes in the future will be needing investment, probably in a much bigger scale. Do we have a choice? If there is one, let the great thinkers say exactly what it is, where it is and how they propose to mobilise it?
Mangala bhauju
If in the death of Mangala Devi Singh, Nepal has lost a lady of
immense fortitude and courage, the Nepali Congress has lost a
consistent voice of dissent. The greatest loser perhaps is the
on-going movement for women's right in the country. Her contribution
to the nation as a freedom fighter, a democratic crusader and
a relentless promoter of women's legitimate place in the society
will be remembered for a long, long time to come. Though her bid
to get elected to parliament was thwarted twice, it would be grossly
unfair to conclude that she was not a popular politician. The
obtaining conditions then were simply not in her favour. Mangala
bhauju, as the late activist was fondly addressed to be
those who were, one time or another, touched by her capacity to
care and help irrespective of who was involved, would be missed
by her friends and admirers all over Nepal. May her soul rest
in peace and may her deeds inspire all of us in the days and years
to come.