Idiot-speak on Nepal

BY darius| IN Opinion | 17/04/2006

You don`t say!

Darius Nakhoonwala

Until recently -- most would argue even now -- India has been relatively insular. Perhaps as a result our leader writers are not very expert at analyzing events in foreign countries or their impact on India or what our response should be.

In a way it is reminiscent of the early 1990s. Then it will be recalled, economic reforms were new and many leader writers, having been brought up on a diet of socialism, were not aware of way the markets work.

The result in both cases is the same - naïve edits. Nothing illustrated this better than the edits on Nepal last week.

All the major papers wrote that King Gyanendra`s ambition was far in excess of his competence; all wrote that democracy had to be restored in Nepal; all wrote that the people were supreme and so on. It was classical liberalism with more than an element of knee-jerk in it.

Few however got beyond this to analyse who `the people` really were and what democracy might actually mean for India. Thus the Maoist element - they will control the new democratic government when it comes in - and the Chinese aspect were barely touched upon even though this is what matters most to India.

Only the Business Standard looked at issues in Nepal from that perspective. As writers of letters to editors used to say in the old days, Kudos.

The Telegraph referred to the Maoist issue obliquely and hesitantly. "It is possible, though, that they have infiltrated the ranks of the mainstream parties in order to give the current stir a more militant character." No mention of what this means for India.

The Hindu wasted a lot of space on adjectives like "brutal" and the past. About the current events and India it had nothing to say. But it went on and on about monarchies in Bhutan, Thailand , Japan and so on. "King Gyanendra`s shenanigans are shown up in stark contrast by the actions of other monarchs in the region."

It then said "it is unlikely that this King will be acceptable to his people even in a constitutionally marginalised role." Yes, yes, but what does this mean for India?

The Hindustan Times, usually on the ball on foreign policy, too missed the cue. It also focused on what all this might mean for Nepal. "The king`s management of the crisis — or lack of it — has led to the strengthening of the idea of a republican Nepal." Then it sought refuge in history only returning briefly to say that "the king`s mishandling has now ensured that the Maoists need to be cut into any deal to restore popular rule… a lot more (is) at stake for India than the US." US? For heaven`s sake, what do they have to do with it?

The Pioneer, however, got it right but did it in a silly blame-the-UPA way. It pointed out the foreign policy implications for India but then spoilt it all by grating on about the way the Manmohan Singh government has handled things and by endorsing the King. "… instead of standing by Naraynhitty Palace, New Delhi has chosen to do business with politicians like Mr GP Koirala of the Nepali Congress, Mr Madhav Kumar Nepal of Communist Party of Nepal (UML) and wanted terrorists like Pushpa Kamal Dahal, better known as `Chairman Prachanda` among his Maoist comrades…"

Then it said something monumentally stupid. "It would appear that the grudge which certain officials of the UPA regime nurse against King Gyanendra is so intense that they are willing to go to any extent, including striking questionable deals with individuals whose anti-India credentials are no secret, to weaken the King. That personal interests are being allowed to subjugate national interest does not appear to bother either the Prime Minister..."

I rest my case about the immaturity of Indian leader writers on foreign policy.

Contact: Darius.Nakhoonwala@gmail.com