The Pioneer mourns for Hindu king
The paper went on and on making a fool of itself, forgetting that the people of Nepal are still Hindu and if the monarchy goes, that fact does not change.
DARIUS NAKHOONWALA wonders how anyone can defend a monarchy with a straight face.
You don¿t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala
It has been a rich week for editorial writers. First BJP¿s win in Karnataka, then the abolition of monarchy in Nepal: who could ask for more? Predictbly, everyone said much the same thing, except of course Pioneer which came up with what Americans call a curve ball.
"The only Hindu kingdom has ceased to exist with Nepal officially becoming a federal, democratic, secular republic and Sri Panch Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah, the symbol of spiritual and temporal power of kings who ruled the Himalayan country and were revered by their people as living avatars of Vishnu… Nepal¿s national day used to be celebrated on the reigning King¿s birthday. From now, May 28 shall be observed as Nepal¿s Republic Day. Thus comes to an end an era in Nepal¿s history…"
I have seldom seen a paper lose it so completely. "A monarchy is no doubt an anachronism in today¿s world and democracy is by far the most preferred system of governance. But it would be absurd to suggest that Nepal¿s monarchy had entirely outlived its utility as a protector of that country¿s civilisational identity and geographical integrity." This is the sort of stuff CPM mouthpieces write when it comes to communist ideology, bereft of fact and reason and seething with stupid righteousness. How can anyone defend a monarchy with a straight face?
The paper went on and on making a fool of itself, forgetting that the people of Nepal are still Hindu and if the monarchy goes, that fact does not change. Read this: "The 560 members of the Constituent Assembly who voted in favour of the resolution abolishing monarchy have not necessarily set their country on the right course to a better future. The four who voted against the resolution shall be remembered for courage in the face of hostility." And I suppose the Hindu people don¿t matter.
It just wouldn¿t stop. It made the valid point that the Maoists should not bump ex-King Gyanendra off. But see how it made it. "The only punishment that Nepal¿s Maoists know of is to murder their adversaries… the world community must step in to ensure that Maoist thuggery does not extend to a massacre reminiscent of what the Bolsheviks did and later Mao practised in Red China…. The UN has been prompt to welcome the birth of the world¿s youngest republic, but that should only confirm our apprehensions about Nepal¿s future. Implicit in the UN¿s response is the celebration of the passing of the world¿s only Hindu kingdom …"
All the other papers were highly laudatory of what had happened in Nepal. That was fine. But not one of them sounded a cautionary note about what lay ahead. They, too, needed to point out that the experience of the 20th century suggests that Maoists tend to settle issues with the gun rather than dialogue.
All in all, the Indian reader was served badly.
