Dr. Upendra Gautam
In addition to Nepal Tarai, clandestine supply and use of arms have systematically been on rise in Nepal's northern mountain and Himalayan frontier. Latest news reports (7 February, 2009) had it that an armed group mounted an assault on Syaulibang police post, located on the border of districts of Pyuthan and Rolpa. It killed policeman Suman GC. It looted all 10 weapons including five 3-knot-3 rifles from the post. High mountain district of Rolpa was known for its "red base" during ten (1996-2006) years of Nepali Maoists' "war of liberation." In the words of Rita Manchanda, "Rolpa is the heartland of the 'People's War' launched by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists)."Strangers who come, we arrest. And if it's an Army-police patrol, we melt away into the fields and jungle and wait it out," Manchanda wrote quoting a 'People's Army' guerilla (Frontline, 31 August-13 September, 2002).
Girija Prasad Koirala, the then prime minister, earned accolades from Chinese leadership for his initiative in ensuring security of the Mt. Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) area from the Nepali side during (April-May, 2008) ascent of the special Olympic torch to the Everest summit. China's profound concern about this historic event was well reflected in its elaborate security preparedness for this area. According to AFP 2 April, 2008 report, Hao Peng, deputy governor of Tibet, carried out a personal inspection of the Everest base camp in Tibet. He was joined by top officials from regional military, police and border security headquarters. Hao was reported to have said that the Everest leg of the Olympic torch was a target for the Dalai Lama following March 2008 deadly unrest in Tibet. The visiting Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi did repeat China's appreciation of Nepal's alertness and role in controlling anti-China protests from Nepali soil during his meeting with prime minister Prachanda in Kathmandu (3 December, 2008).
Arming of Nepal's northern Himalayan frontier has its long-drawn out history. The history is linked with the governance change in China in 1949 and the ideological Cold War, which influenced Dalai Lama to flee from Tibet in 1959 and help "legitimize" establishment of "Tibetan government-in-exile" in the newly created Republic of India. Even then more than 40 years ago, Ajit Bhattacharjea, borrowing extensively from an article written by George Patterson in weekly the Reporter had this separatist story to tell: Khampas and other Tibetan troops are being quietly recruited and trained in modern arms in north-east India…Today almost the entire Khampa force in Tibet is still intact except for about 4,000 who either died or were imprisoned in 1959. It totals perhaps as many as 150,000 or 200,000 able-bodied fighting men. The majority have guns…The shortest line of supply for the greatest number of Khampas is from Assam through NEFA… through Wa-long... But it is from Nepal that the most serious threat to China could be launched. For in northern Nepal, where great numbers of Tibetan refugees have settled, there are some 5,000 Khampas.
After meeting with these Khampas through Nepal route in March, 1964, in company with two British television co-workers, Patterson gave these details of the planned raid: “Twenty-three men were selected to take part in this raid, including the three of us, and we all would have to leave the valley without arousing suspicion…The arrangements were the responsibility of the underground organization in Tibet — the Mimang Tsongdu — which would also post guards at all exits of the valley, prepare food and supply guides.”
Now about the raid: A convoy of four green, three-ton military vehicles, each flying a red flag on its nearside mud-guard, appeared on the road. Tendar’s (the Khampa leader) shot rang out the signal for the others to fire. The driver slumped at the wheel. In the rising fusillade the second and third trucks were also stopped in their tracks and the drivers killed. The fourth driver and the other Chinese soldiers leaped out and took cover under the trucks. “The Khampas were merciless. With rifles, hand-grenades and machine-guns they kept up a withering fire until all the Chinese except one, who made a desperate run for the boulders beneath our ridge, were dead” (Hindustan Times, 18 March, 1965).
The history of externalized insecurity in the Himalayas has further been instigated now by the agents of the New Cold War. These agents use Nepali soil for anti-Chinese activities in complete violation of Nepal's policy and laws; thus undercutting in effect Nepal's sovereign standing from within. The Himalayas extending to Afghanistan in the west, Sikkim and Assam in the east with the south-north Trans-Himalayan passages in between render them more vulnerable to the New Cold War agents. The impetus of new US administration in Afghanistan against anti-US forces and Chinese concerns to have safeguards in Afghanistan against "the “East Turkistan separatist force" (The Rising Nepal, 20 January, 2009) together add unprecedented angle to the Himalayan continuum.
China, which used to typically describe Sino-Nepali relations in terms of "the traditional friendship," appears to have recognized the added angle in the continuum. In a meeting with Nepal's visiting foreign secretary Gyan Chandra Acharya in Beijing Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi gave expression to this recognition when he said, China always viewed "dealing with and developing ties with Nepal from a strategic and long-term perspective" (Xinhua, 18 February, 2009).
About the same time around the US secretary of state Hilary Clinton was in China that was also the start of her inaugural year and the 30th anniversary of Sino-U.S. diplomatic relations. She described her engagement with China as "the beginning of a new era" of cooperation in the Sino-US relations. Chinese leadership and the new US secretary of state seem to have clicked well with each other leading to forge an initial common understanding between them on "the complicated and ever-shifting international political and economic situation" (read US war in Afghanistan and global economic recession). So much so that in the new era of bilateral cooperation they are not only prepared to "cross the river in a common boat," but also to "progress together hand in hand" (China View reports, 21 February, 2009). The post-Bush Sino-US relations appear to be inspired by proverbial strategies contained in "The Art of War." This book is China’s oldest treatise extant on the principles of warfare. Sun Tzi, a Chinese military strategist, wrote this book more than 2500 years ago. Given the pragmatism flourishing between the two countries, one can be hopeful that the Sino-US joint strategy of cooperation will have positive impact on enabling peace in the Himalayas.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Iran, the Jews and Germany
ROGER COHEN
So a Jerusalem Post article says that I'm “hardly the first American to be misled by the existence of synagogues in totalitarian countries.”
The Atlantic Monthly's Jeffrey Goldberg finds me “particularly credulous,” taken in by the Iranian hospitality and friendliness that “are the hallmarks of most Muslim societies.” (Thanks for that info, Jeffrey.)
A conservative Web site called American Thinker, which tries to prove its name is an oxymoron, believes I would have been fooled by the Nazis' sham at the Theresienstadt camp.
The indignation stems from my recent column on Iranian Jews, which said that the 25,000-strong community worships in relative tranquility; that Persian Jews have fared better than Arab Jews; that hostility toward Jews in Iran has on occasion led to trumped-up charges against them; and that those enamored of the “Mad Mullah” caricature of Iran regard any compromise with it as a rerun of Munich 1938.
This last point found confirmation in outraged correspondence from several American Jews unable to resist some analogy between Iran and Nazi Germany. I was based in Berlin for three years; Germany's confrontation with the Holocaust inhabited me. Let's be clear: Iran's Islamic Republic is no Third Reich redux. Nor is it a totalitarian state.
Munich allowed Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland. Iran has not waged an expansionary war in more than two centuries.
Totalitarian regimes require the complete subservience of the individual to the state and tolerate only one party to which all institutions are subordinated. Iran is an un-free society with a keen, intermittently brutal apparatus of repression, but it's far from meeting these criteria. Significant margins of liberty, even democracy, exist. Anything but mad, the mullahs have proved malleable.
Most of Iran's population is under 30; it's an Internet-connected generation. Access to satellite television is widespread. The BBC's new Farsi service is all the rage.
Abdullah Momeni, a student opponent of the regime, told me, “The Internet is very important to us; in fact, it is of infinite importance.” Iranians are not cut off, like Cubans or North Koreans.
The June presidential election pitting the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, against Mohammad Khatami (a former president who once spoke in a synagogue) will be a genuine contest as compared with the charades that pass for elections in many Arab states. No fire has burned the Majlis, or parliament, down.
If you're thinking trains-on-time Fascist efficiency, think again. Tehran's new telecommunications tower took 20 years to build. I was told its restaurant would open “soon.” So, it is said, will the Bushehr nuclear power plant, a project in the works for a mere 30 years. A Persian Chernobyl is more likely than some Middle Eastern nuclear Armageddon, if that's any comfort.
For all the morality police inspecting whether women are wearing boots outside their pants (the latest no-no on the dress front) and the regime zealots of the Basiji militia, the air you breathe in Iran is not suffocating. Its streets at dusk hum with life --not a monochrome male-only form of it, or one inhabited by fear -- but the vibrancy of a changing, highly educated society.
This is the Iran of subtle shades that the country's Jews inhabit. Life is more difficult for them than for Muslims, but to suggest they inhabit a totalitarian hell is self-serving nonsense.
One Iranian exile, no lover of the Islamic Republic, wrote to me saying that my account of Iran's Jews had brought “tears to my eyes” because “you are saying what many of us would like to hear.”
Far from the cradle of Middle Eastern Islamist zealotry, she suggested, “Iran --the supposed enemy -- is the one society that has gone through its extremist fervor and is coming out the other end. It is relatively stable and socially dynamic. As my father, who continues to live there, says, 'It is the least undemocratic country in the region outside Israel.' ”
This notion of a “post-fervor” Iran is significant. The compromises being painfully fought out between Islam and democracy in Tehran are of seminal importance. They belie the notion of a fanatical power; they explain Jewish life.
That does not mean fanaticism does not exist or that terrible crimes have not been committed, like the Iran-backed bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires 15 years ago.
But the equating of Iran with terror today is simplistic. Hamas and Hezbollah have evolved into broad political movements widely seen as resisting an Israel over-ready to use crushing force. It is essential to think again about them, just as it is essential to toss out Iran caricatures.
I return to this subject because behind the Jewish issue in Iran lies a critical one --the U.S. propensity to fixate on and demonize a country through a one-dimensional lens, with a sometimes disastrous chain of results.
It's worth recalling that hateful, ultranationalist rhetoric is no Iranian preserve. Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's race-baiting anti-Arab firebrand may find a place in a government led by Benjamin Netanyahu. He should not.
Nor should racist demagoguery -- wherever -- prompt facile allusions to the murderous Nazi master of it.
Courtesy : The New York Times
So a Jerusalem Post article says that I'm “hardly the first American to be misled by the existence of synagogues in totalitarian countries.”
The Atlantic Monthly's Jeffrey Goldberg finds me “particularly credulous,” taken in by the Iranian hospitality and friendliness that “are the hallmarks of most Muslim societies.” (Thanks for that info, Jeffrey.)
A conservative Web site called American Thinker, which tries to prove its name is an oxymoron, believes I would have been fooled by the Nazis' sham at the Theresienstadt camp.
The indignation stems from my recent column on Iranian Jews, which said that the 25,000-strong community worships in relative tranquility; that Persian Jews have fared better than Arab Jews; that hostility toward Jews in Iran has on occasion led to trumped-up charges against them; and that those enamored of the “Mad Mullah” caricature of Iran regard any compromise with it as a rerun of Munich 1938.
This last point found confirmation in outraged correspondence from several American Jews unable to resist some analogy between Iran and Nazi Germany. I was based in Berlin for three years; Germany's confrontation with the Holocaust inhabited me. Let's be clear: Iran's Islamic Republic is no Third Reich redux. Nor is it a totalitarian state.
Munich allowed Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland. Iran has not waged an expansionary war in more than two centuries.
Totalitarian regimes require the complete subservience of the individual to the state and tolerate only one party to which all institutions are subordinated. Iran is an un-free society with a keen, intermittently brutal apparatus of repression, but it's far from meeting these criteria. Significant margins of liberty, even democracy, exist. Anything but mad, the mullahs have proved malleable.
Most of Iran's population is under 30; it's an Internet-connected generation. Access to satellite television is widespread. The BBC's new Farsi service is all the rage.
Abdullah Momeni, a student opponent of the regime, told me, “The Internet is very important to us; in fact, it is of infinite importance.” Iranians are not cut off, like Cubans or North Koreans.
The June presidential election pitting the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, against Mohammad Khatami (a former president who once spoke in a synagogue) will be a genuine contest as compared with the charades that pass for elections in many Arab states. No fire has burned the Majlis, or parliament, down.
If you're thinking trains-on-time Fascist efficiency, think again. Tehran's new telecommunications tower took 20 years to build. I was told its restaurant would open “soon.” So, it is said, will the Bushehr nuclear power plant, a project in the works for a mere 30 years. A Persian Chernobyl is more likely than some Middle Eastern nuclear Armageddon, if that's any comfort.
For all the morality police inspecting whether women are wearing boots outside their pants (the latest no-no on the dress front) and the regime zealots of the Basiji militia, the air you breathe in Iran is not suffocating. Its streets at dusk hum with life --not a monochrome male-only form of it, or one inhabited by fear -- but the vibrancy of a changing, highly educated society.
This is the Iran of subtle shades that the country's Jews inhabit. Life is more difficult for them than for Muslims, but to suggest they inhabit a totalitarian hell is self-serving nonsense.
One Iranian exile, no lover of the Islamic Republic, wrote to me saying that my account of Iran's Jews had brought “tears to my eyes” because “you are saying what many of us would like to hear.”
Far from the cradle of Middle Eastern Islamist zealotry, she suggested, “Iran --the supposed enemy -- is the one society that has gone through its extremist fervor and is coming out the other end. It is relatively stable and socially dynamic. As my father, who continues to live there, says, 'It is the least undemocratic country in the region outside Israel.' ”
This notion of a “post-fervor” Iran is significant. The compromises being painfully fought out between Islam and democracy in Tehran are of seminal importance. They belie the notion of a fanatical power; they explain Jewish life.
That does not mean fanaticism does not exist or that terrible crimes have not been committed, like the Iran-backed bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires 15 years ago.
But the equating of Iran with terror today is simplistic. Hamas and Hezbollah have evolved into broad political movements widely seen as resisting an Israel over-ready to use crushing force. It is essential to think again about them, just as it is essential to toss out Iran caricatures.
I return to this subject because behind the Jewish issue in Iran lies a critical one --the U.S. propensity to fixate on and demonize a country through a one-dimensional lens, with a sometimes disastrous chain of results.
It's worth recalling that hateful, ultranationalist rhetoric is no Iranian preserve. Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's race-baiting anti-Arab firebrand may find a place in a government led by Benjamin Netanyahu. He should not.
Nor should racist demagoguery -- wherever -- prompt facile allusions to the murderous Nazi master of it.
Courtesy : The New York Times
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Unity in catastrophe
By Alankar Khanal
People of any country may have to face Nature's wrath and a deadly strike some times without warning. This time the people of eastern Nepal have become the victims of Nature's ferocious fury. It has resulted in woeful plight of many people, individuals and families of our country. At the same time, a lot of finger-pointing and blame game has started over the issue whether this was a natural calamity or the one resulting from authorities' irresponsibility and negligence. Whatever the case may be, the fact remains that our people in the flood-affected areas are in dire straits and in need of massive aid.
But amidst the affliction, there's something to be proud of. The way Nepali people have started helping the survivors of the disaster with open arms is laudable. With each passing day we are hearing that the relief materials and necessary assistance are being received. All including Nepal Army, policemen, doctors, locals have been exerting their efforts on finding survivors, treating them, and accommodating the displaced.
These courageous and generous individuals have happily volunteered their skills and efforts in order to save as many people as possible by rescuing them and providing them with necessary assistance. Without a doubt they're doing a fantastic job of providing humanitarian assistance with dignity and respect. All seem to be united for one noble cause.
As the flood did not discriminate when it tore its way through the homes of these people dismantling everything on its way without regard for race, caste, culture, religion, age or income level, I am glad to see we are helping the victims of the flood the same way, without discrimination.
Our national unity is crucial for our national development. Therefore, I always get very agitated with issues that separate us as people of one country. I have always marveled at what it would take to create an intimate bond between all citizens of our country. I have always wondered, whether facing a national disaster or calamity could stimulate our sense of oneness and patriotism. Unfortunately, that is true. Such a bond is visible only at times of sorrow and mourning. Our national unity and nationalism has been exemplified mostly at times of grief, tragedies and catastrophes only. Rest of the times we are busy fighting for some trifling issues completely discounting the issues that are more pertinent.
I just want to put across my thought as to why such sense of humanity, unity and belongingness pops out only during times of adversity? Do we have to wait for a missile to strike us, an earthquake to shake us or a flood to sweep us to stimulate our love, affection and respect for our people or should we all stand together all the time to promote peace and love over violence and hatred and live happily in an indivisible Nepal? It's high time all Nepalis contemplated about this.
People of any country may have to face Nature's wrath and a deadly strike some times without warning. This time the people of eastern Nepal have become the victims of Nature's ferocious fury. It has resulted in woeful plight of many people, individuals and families of our country. At the same time, a lot of finger-pointing and blame game has started over the issue whether this was a natural calamity or the one resulting from authorities' irresponsibility and negligence. Whatever the case may be, the fact remains that our people in the flood-affected areas are in dire straits and in need of massive aid.
But amidst the affliction, there's something to be proud of. The way Nepali people have started helping the survivors of the disaster with open arms is laudable. With each passing day we are hearing that the relief materials and necessary assistance are being received. All including Nepal Army, policemen, doctors, locals have been exerting their efforts on finding survivors, treating them, and accommodating the displaced.
These courageous and generous individuals have happily volunteered their skills and efforts in order to save as many people as possible by rescuing them and providing them with necessary assistance. Without a doubt they're doing a fantastic job of providing humanitarian assistance with dignity and respect. All seem to be united for one noble cause.
As the flood did not discriminate when it tore its way through the homes of these people dismantling everything on its way without regard for race, caste, culture, religion, age or income level, I am glad to see we are helping the victims of the flood the same way, without discrimination.
Our national unity is crucial for our national development. Therefore, I always get very agitated with issues that separate us as people of one country. I have always marveled at what it would take to create an intimate bond between all citizens of our country. I have always wondered, whether facing a national disaster or calamity could stimulate our sense of oneness and patriotism. Unfortunately, that is true. Such a bond is visible only at times of sorrow and mourning. Our national unity and nationalism has been exemplified mostly at times of grief, tragedies and catastrophes only. Rest of the times we are busy fighting for some trifling issues completely discounting the issues that are more pertinent.
I just want to put across my thought as to why such sense of humanity, unity and belongingness pops out only during times of adversity? Do we have to wait for a missile to strike us, an earthquake to shake us or a flood to sweep us to stimulate our love, affection and respect for our people or should we all stand together all the time to promote peace and love over violence and hatred and live happily in an indivisible Nepal? It's high time all Nepalis contemplated about this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
