Posted by: relaxion May 3, 2009
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
While all the other parties are becoming puppets of India, one party decided to stand on it's feet and not be a puppet of India! Encroachment of India in Nepal's politics, Nepali land and Nepalese nationality has been largely challenged with this move and this is what needed to happen from a long time ago.
Now there are actually some people with guts to run the country, the status-quo is getting super-scared. It is quite interesting to see how low the parties can fall in playing the game of politics that they become the prey of self-interest of India. This is terribly sad.
I would like to share some frustration of way people are failing to use logic and discerning what's reasonable in thinking about this whole scenario. I know people have concerns of Nepal turning into dictatorial state after Katwal sacking and so on, but speaking purely with reason, I would like to just jot down few thoughts on how the steps that are taken do make sense.
Why Katwal needed to be sacked?
1. Well, he wasn't obeying government's order. When army disobeys government = people, then who is it under? Just to put it in perspective: imagine US army disobeying Obama's order and being free to do whatever it wants. Nepal army is just the same in a smaller scale. If we are thinking government in a democratic sense, then those who are in power are not Maoists, it's us because it is a democratically selected government and represents us. Logically speaking, government = us. if army is not under us then it's under Katwal. and that's not cool.
2. Protectivism of army by political parties
I still don't get it why political parties, esp NC, become the armor of Katwal (i.e. not same as ARMY)? when clarification was asked, why NC rallied around army? shouldn't the government be able to ask it's employees why they misbehaved or why certain tasks were done the way it was done? Whatever the intention is for such clarification, this is the govt's right to ensure accountability of its parts.
3. "Apolitical" army
One main issue that has come up with army integration is the idea is that PLAs are indoctrinated into certain political ideas and may continue to do so. Well, it's the same way around in army. I have spoken with many top level army officers and everyone still has a deep sympathy for king and still wants to bring back the king. isn't that being "indoctrinated" to a monarchial system of ideology. So dreaming the idea that army is "apolitical" is simply ridiculous. no one is apolitical since politics becomes so much the part of everyone's lives, esp if you are facing it everyday, everywhere.
Of course Maoists have their own self interests and are not driven solely full of righteousness. But, I will not spend time on that. My point in writing this was to just give a different perspective on why the steps was fully logical, without saying that it was good, which can get very subjective with my own biases.
Now there are actually some people with guts to run the country, the status-quo is getting super-scared. It is quite interesting to see how low the parties can fall in playing the game of politics that they become the prey of self-interest of India. This is terribly sad.
I would like to share some frustration of way people are failing to use logic and discerning what's reasonable in thinking about this whole scenario. I know people have concerns of Nepal turning into dictatorial state after Katwal sacking and so on, but speaking purely with reason, I would like to just jot down few thoughts on how the steps that are taken do make sense.
Why Katwal needed to be sacked?
1. Well, he wasn't obeying government's order. When army disobeys government = people, then who is it under? Just to put it in perspective: imagine US army disobeying Obama's order and being free to do whatever it wants. Nepal army is just the same in a smaller scale. If we are thinking government in a democratic sense, then those who are in power are not Maoists, it's us because it is a democratically selected government and represents us. Logically speaking, government = us. if army is not under us then it's under Katwal. and that's not cool.
2. Protectivism of army by political parties
I still don't get it why political parties, esp NC, become the armor of Katwal (i.e. not same as ARMY)? when clarification was asked, why NC rallied around army? shouldn't the government be able to ask it's employees why they misbehaved or why certain tasks were done the way it was done? Whatever the intention is for such clarification, this is the govt's right to ensure accountability of its parts.
3. "Apolitical" army
One main issue that has come up with army integration is the idea is that PLAs are indoctrinated into certain political ideas and may continue to do so. Well, it's the same way around in army. I have spoken with many top level army officers and everyone still has a deep sympathy for king and still wants to bring back the king. isn't that being "indoctrinated" to a monarchial system of ideology. So dreaming the idea that army is "apolitical" is simply ridiculous. no one is apolitical since politics becomes so much the part of everyone's lives, esp if you are facing it everyday, everywhere.
Of course Maoists have their own self interests and are not driven solely full of righteousness. But, I will not spend time on that. My point in writing this was to just give a different perspective on why the steps was fully logical, without saying that it was good, which can get very subjective with my own biases.