it’s now for the government in New Delhi and its concerned authority to reveal the truth about the terms of the agreement reached between the King and Nepal parties in April of that unfortunate year.
By Deepak Gajurel
After a long pause, King Gyanendra Shah has opened up his mouth, albeit little, and demanded the ‘agreement’ reached between him and the parties be respected. The said agreement was believed to have been made while ending the ‘Janaandolan II’ in April 2006.
Though the king has spoken about the agreement, second time since he had spoken about such agreement two years back, that an agreement was reached, he has preferred to keep lull about the terms and circumstances of the truce.
However, some self-proclaimed ‘responsible’ party leaders have denied that any written agreement was done with the king. Obviously, this makes things confusing on the terms, modes, parties, witnesses and/or proofs of such agreement.
One of Nepali Congress leaders, has ruled out any agreement, but partners of ‘Loktantrik Ganatantra’, namely Maoist and some Madhesi leaders, have gone public that some kind of agreement might have been done by Nepali Congress and UML with the king.
The established facts speak that the King/Royal Palace had, towards the concluding days of the Janaandolan II, tried to bring in mediator in the form of United Nations resident representative to Nepal. But the agitating party leaders refused to ‘deal’ through such trustworthy and reliable witness, turning the table towards Indian guidance, though covertly.
Apparently enough, Nepali leaders were scolded to go with this strategy to avoid ‘leak’ of their deceit and political betrayal to the nation and the Nepali populace. This was also necessary for hiding their, and their master’s incompetency and unreliability.
That course from our southern neighbor will not only help metamorphose Nepali parties, it will facilitate smooth settlement of politics in this Himalayan nation.
A number of ‘closely guarded secretes’ of Nepali political course have seen the light of the day since April 2006. Examples are abundant: What was the force behind ‘People’s War in Nepal? Who paid for Nepal’s destruction in the name of revolution? Who brought together Nepal’s ballot and bullet loving ones? The list is long.
One remarkable, then closely kept, secrete now is not that buried deep. Many are familiar with the answer to the question: who was comfortably seated in the rear-room where ‘Loktantrik’ party leaders were gathered to negotiate with the King, through a King’s confidant doing to and fro Narayanhiti and a private house in Maharajgunj.
Now King Gyanendra has chosen to speak out the past agreement to the Nepali people and the world which is keenly watching Nepal’s political quagmire. Nepal’s Royal Palace, for that matter King Gyanendra, has no past record of lying, even at the time of crises. So, Gyanendra’s claim of treaty cannot outright be discarded as a lie and false claim.
On the other hand, political parties and their leaders have an demonstrated character of lying and breaching the agreements. The chronic tendencies of not honoring scores of ‘agreements’ signed by the governments led by Nepali Congress, Maoist or UML in past eight years are the evidences of their malicious politics. This is one of the causes that have engulfed this nation into political mess, with growing discontents which is feared to erupt into destructive violence.
In April 2006, when the Nepal representative of the United Nations was denied to mediate between the King and the parties, Indian Prime Minister had sent his special envoy, Dr. Karan Singh, officially, to meet the King and the party leaders, and presumably to negotiate between them.
In the longer terms, it will help reduce a number of ‘security concerns’ for Delhi, emanating currently from Nepali soil and souls.
Nothing has so far been revealed about the ‘exchange’ between/among the concerned. Neither Delhi has done so, for reasons unknown. It is noteworthy that then Indian foreign minister, now the President of India, Pranav Mukharjee, has proudly announced, in an Al Jazeera television interview in 2010, that 12-point Delhi agreement was facilitated and mediated by India.
Given this background, it’s now for the government in New Delhi and its concerned authority to reveal the truth about the terms of the agreement reached between the King and Nepal parties in April of that unfortunate year.
That course from our southern neighbor will not only help metamorphose Nepali parties, it will facilitate smooth settlement of politics in this Himalayan nation. In the longer terms, it will help reduce a number of ‘security concerns’ for Delhi, emanating currently from Nepali soil and souls.