Saturday , September 22 2018
Home / Political News / Editorial / Political Games Abroad

Political Games Abroad

If a senior KGB functionary could eventuality recall in his memoirs that India suited the local for his hunt for a possible CIA recruit since that country had ripe politicians to offer their services (one even an ultimate prime minister), the case with Nepal and Nepali politicians would seem surely dismal. Indeed, way back in the late Sixties it is generally believed that American presidential candidate Richard Nixon had had to hasten building bridges to China upon learning that his Democratic rival Hubert Humphrey had already begun reaching out to warring Vietnam through private intermediaries in New York and Paris. All things said and done current politics in the United States remains centered around the possible Russian encroachment in the last U.S. presidential elections and the possible nexus between president Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. This should make evident that the tendency of individual politician to utilize individual contacts for the individual’s political gains is near universal. The current American concern on the constitutionality of such a trend is thus surely valid.
The practical side of politics is thus surely amply displayed here. Revealingly, so is the concern for democratic and constitutional checks to such transgressions. One can merely, thus, look askance at the current concern and controversy generated by the Prachanda visit to India and his forthcoming visit to China. The former Maoist co-chairs the ruling NCP with the sitting prime minister K.P. Oli. Whether or not he visits the neighboring countries with a mission endorsed by the party and sanctioned by his prime minister remains unquestioned in the public discussions. The absence of this very public concern and the mutations emanating from party and government sources make the discussions merely irrelevant. What is relevant is the concern. Can individuals, regardless of their status in government approach individual countries with national agenda on an individual level and the public and the party and the government not adequately informed? It should be government and the party which should be speaking and neither Pushpa Kamal nor the public discussion are adequate.
Why this does not happen in Nepal is because our politics has time and again transgressed on this matter. It was King Tribhuvan that gave his venture into New Delhi upon return here a façade of constitutionalism by telling the public that he had taken back the government monopoly given to the Ranas by his forefathers for sake of democracy. This essential national formalism has been absent from each venture into foreign lands by individual politicians who have allowed their interests to be served by foreign agenda. Prachanda is no lone exception. The public uproar is not without meaning but is nevertheless meaningless since both government and the ruling party appear nonchalant. In this sense the public concern and discussion are well nigh redundant. Forget the opposition parties who are themselves partners in crime. If government and the ruling party don’t care, why should the rest?

Check Also


We are at it again. Nepali intelligentsia and the media is as preoccupied as Prime …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.