The restoration of the House of Representatives brought a semblance of order to the Valley, but with the memory of September 01, 2004 fresh in my mind, I looked on with apprehension as the people took to the streets on Tuesday for the victory rally. To begin with, I do not agree to the use of the term victory: agreed that the monarch has acceded in parts to reason and the need of the hour, but the ongoing tussle has left no victors, only losers. The people have been the hardest hit and the biggest losers.
Led by the seven agitating parties, and catalyzed by the excessive use of force by the security forces, the people have had a big say in the recent political developments in Nepal. The parties owe their success to people power, but people power may well their downfall. The unprecedented arson and pillage that the capital witnessed on September 01, 2004 was a vent to the dormant angst and frustration of the people. A single spark was enough to inflame passions and inspire destruction of private property at a scale never before seen. It does not take much to trigger such a flare up of emotions, and it maybe only a matter of time, before the next one takes place.
Political rhetoric can change overnight. The same leaders who braved the bite of the monarchy alongside the people on the street may themselves be forced to turn the guns on the public when in power. Many promises were made during the past fortnight. Fuelled by a sense of right and the promises made, people power drove the leaders ahead. Expectations are heavy, but will they keep the promises made?
Pro-republic slogans are echoing across the nation. While most people welcome the current initiative, there are others who feel let down. Life is steadily returning to normal, but the fear of recurrence lies heavy in our minds.
We have seen a tremendous display of ‘people power’, but reining in the same force seems a headache this coalition of parties may have to contend with if they fail to deliver yet again.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Monday, April 24, 2006
Fall from grace
Not so long ago, I was rebuked by a close friend for questioning the protocol of addressing the monarch as Shree paanch. As I rationalized, it would be absolutely silly to address the British monarch 'Her Highness, Highness,..., on similar logic. I was accused of not being a 'Nepali at heart, and that I failed to understand Nepali sensibilities and the reverence with which a common Nepali looks on at the institution of monarchy. My friend in question BTW is a U.S. educated, open, liberal and intelligent individual. Last evening, I met my friend online and she complained about 'that king' being stubborn, and leading the nation to ruin. Gone was the former reverence for the monarch. In its place instead was a certain degree of revulsion. I have been a mute observer to the events in Nepal in the last few years, but I found it especially sad to see the royal institution's fall from grace in the wake of recent happenings.
Power is said to be intoxicating and addictive, but never being in a position of power, I cannot validate that claim. Further, being an ordinary person on the street, I have to admit that my view and perspective may be way different from what the monarch sees. However, given the state of affairs, I strongly feel that 'a graceful exit' would be really becoming of an institution, traditionally, so loved and revered by the common people. Ironically, by his fixation towards maintaining his royal status, the monarch appears to have taken the royalty itself towards extinction.
Many condemned the monarch’s move to take the state of affairs into his own hands towards a possible salvage from shambles. In retrospect, I think it was a bold and proactive initiative. The political leaders had sold out previously on many occasions, and the people felt let down by the democratic institution. The royal takeover thus raised the hope and aspirations of many. But as things unfolded, the initiative was not backed by the will that sparked during the takeover. Surrounded by sycophants, most with their own axes to grind, what followed was ‘public ego wrestling’ between the royalists and the democratic forces.
From bad, the situation plummeted down to worse. As it soon became evident, autocracy and high-handedness would achieve as little or even less than what the democratically elected bodies had managed to in the past. Well, we all know the rest of the story. Anyway, the recent headlines may read the monarch's address as 'bowing down' to pressure, but I would label it as a sensible move. I agree though that the content of the address is unacceptable: it is yet another hollow promise. It was good for the monarch to relinquish executive powers, but it is ‘too little, a little too late’. For someone who wrested power into his own hands for the common good not very long away, it was a complete let down to do a 'Pontius Pilate’ when things did not fare as expected.
It took tremendous will and purpose from the monarch to make the unpopular move of taking things into his own hands, but the same has not been shown when it is time now to make a graceful admission that the mission has failed: to acknowledge the mandate, and to read the writing on the wall.
The monarch may have his way yet and continue to rule the people, but he no longer rules their heart for sure.
Power is said to be intoxicating and addictive, but never being in a position of power, I cannot validate that claim. Further, being an ordinary person on the street, I have to admit that my view and perspective may be way different from what the monarch sees. However, given the state of affairs, I strongly feel that 'a graceful exit' would be really becoming of an institution, traditionally, so loved and revered by the common people. Ironically, by his fixation towards maintaining his royal status, the monarch appears to have taken the royalty itself towards extinction.
Many condemned the monarch’s move to take the state of affairs into his own hands towards a possible salvage from shambles. In retrospect, I think it was a bold and proactive initiative. The political leaders had sold out previously on many occasions, and the people felt let down by the democratic institution. The royal takeover thus raised the hope and aspirations of many. But as things unfolded, the initiative was not backed by the will that sparked during the takeover. Surrounded by sycophants, most with their own axes to grind, what followed was ‘public ego wrestling’ between the royalists and the democratic forces.
From bad, the situation plummeted down to worse. As it soon became evident, autocracy and high-handedness would achieve as little or even less than what the democratically elected bodies had managed to in the past. Well, we all know the rest of the story. Anyway, the recent headlines may read the monarch's address as 'bowing down' to pressure, but I would label it as a sensible move. I agree though that the content of the address is unacceptable: it is yet another hollow promise. It was good for the monarch to relinquish executive powers, but it is ‘too little, a little too late’. For someone who wrested power into his own hands for the common good not very long away, it was a complete let down to do a 'Pontius Pilate’ when things did not fare as expected.
It took tremendous will and purpose from the monarch to make the unpopular move of taking things into his own hands, but the same has not been shown when it is time now to make a graceful admission that the mission has failed: to acknowledge the mandate, and to read the writing on the wall.
The monarch may have his way yet and continue to rule the people, but he no longer rules their heart for sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
