(Courtesy: Mr. Remo)
“I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.” - Winston Churchill
Ambassador Moriarty may not exactly be Churchill and the fate of the World, unlike 1939, isn’t at stake if the Maoists “win.“ Yet, when his term ends this summer, he’ll be remembered for sticking to Churchill’s principles of non-appeasement and practical thinking as central tenets of his diplomatic policy in Nepal.
People like Churchill may not be admired anymore in this post-modern world where “talks” are prescribed as bromides for every social affliction. Dictators and murderers are not driven by deadly pathological ambition, hatred, and a dark soul - but are merely leaders representing “victims.”
There is no evil in post-modern society, no flaws in the very nature and character of humans as Thomas Hobbes postulated, and culture and history as a determinant of a society’s fate are trumped by more therapeutic interpretations handed down by self-absorbed elites. If there is elemental evil in Nepal, we are told that it exists in the Auschwitz-like conditions perpetuated by the Bhairabhnath Battalion, among the Nepalese Army, among “royalists”, and the United States government.
But when Moriarty’s detractors wake up, they will still wake up ugly. Not necessarily physically ugly (though most are but 238 years of Shah rule is undoubtedly the “root” cause) but ugly by way of their incoherent and self-appointed morality, misguided analysis (at best 50 percent correct on a good day), a peculiar melding of elitist arrogance and resentment, and a propensity for delusional and craven behaviour. A dreadful, dreary, predictable and grim lot these detractors of Moriarty.
When Ambassador Moriarty first arrived, the balance of power was shared among the triumvirate of the Monarchy, political parties, and the Maoists. The Maoists were already labeled as terrorists and were waging an insurgency aimed at dislodging a relatively stable government moving on what some might call an “organic” growth trajectory.
True, the Palace enjoyed inordinate amounts of power (and revealed itself as an institution stuck in the 17th century Nepal) and the political parties were guilty of gross dysfunction. But neither were eliminating class enemies en masse and systematically and violently eliminating the presence of the State and Nepalese society.
Surely, in this scenario, his thinking must have been driven by the fact that stability was the preferred alternative. Stability has its benefits: schools say open, thereby, providing the skills for Nepalese to compete in the local and global economy; businesses feel secure and their investments enable growth and keep kids off the streets; and with increased wealth, “feudal” barriers break down and society becomes more modern and, hopefully, more prepared for handling the responsibilities that go with democracy.
When King Gyanendra (also an eventual detractor of Moriarty) launched the February 1st movement, it was not with the blessing of Moriarty - nor has Moriarty tried to “save“ the King. The counsel that was given King Gyanendra was to restore Parliament - before it was too late. King Gyanendra failed to heed this counsel in time (how silly then and now the notion of “granting an audience” when your country is a borderline colony).
Gyanendra is now on the verge of paying close to the ultimate price for his (and his only) woeful risk management. Maoists are on the verge of unearned legitimacy (recently ordained by Jimmy Carter).
Yet, columnists like the venal C.K. Lal and the self-appointed moralist-in-chief Kanak Dixit and a caste of dozens from “civil” society, politics, and the media attacked his positions and engaged in misrepresentations of his statements and reverted to the hackneyed anti-American rhetoric as substitutes for rational discourse.
Moriarty advocated common sense, a characteristic lacking in politicians, activists, and our media. Even as his term ends, Moriarty continues to issue warnings that actions and the words of Maoists should be closely evaluated and acted upon: this played for a long time to the deaf years of this group, who are conditioned to respond in Pavlovian fashion to words like “imperialism”, “colonialism”, and “the Iraq War” rather than real threats to the freedom they so glibly talk about.
And recently, Ambassador Moriarty offered up (on behalf of his government) a way out for the Bhutanese refugees, who have languished in limbo for more than 16 years. Most refugees, it appears, want this opportunity - except perhaps for leaders who have benefited from their misery.
Yes, justice will not be done if there is third-country repatriation and this grates on any advocate of justice. The King of Bhutan (far more a demon than Gyanendra) ethnically cleansed some 20 percent of his population and the chances for “justice” are slim.
Sure, there should be some Braveheart-like battle for FREEEEEDOOOM, but the reality is that the Bhutanese refugees will end up in some Orwellian Palestinian-like camp in perpetuity - while their leaders and UN staff benefit financially, much like the top leaders of Hamas and Fatah.
Ambassador Moriarty is advocating the practical way out through third party repatriation.
So while he may not get a great send-off in the press and many might say good riddance, there are many reasonable Nepalese who will see in him the essence of Sir Winston Churchill. And his detractors will still wake up ugly.
Related Postings:
James F. Moriarty - Farewell Speech
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/06/reproduced-as-posted-at-following-url.html
Life is Good When You Are a Nepali Intellectual Elite
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/06/life-is-good-when-you-are-nepali.html
Thank You Daniela - But Nepal is Already on "Plan B"http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/05/thank-you-daniela-but-nepal-is-already.html
Nepal's Struggle with Feudalism and Fatalism - Moriarty, Martin and Manmohan as "Gods"
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/05/nepals-struggle-with-feudalism-and.html
Where are Moriarty's Haters Now?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/03/where-are-moriartys-haters-now.html
The Idiot’s Guide to the Maoist Playbook
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/01/idiots-guide-to-maoist-playbook.html
Surreal Politics - How Nepal’s Intellectual / Political Class, Continue to Look the Other Way…
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/01/surreal-politics-how-nepals.html
Myth #1: Dispelling the Myths of Nepal’s Peace Processhttp://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/10/myth-1-dispelling-myths-of-nepals.html
Myth #2: “Moriarty’s insistence on Maoist disarmament is interventionist policy.”
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/10/myth-2-moriartys-insistence-on-maoist.html
Myth #3: “The Americans are contributing to an eventual meltdown in the peace process, which will ultimately precipitate another political crisis in Nepal
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/10/myth-3-americans-are-contributing-to.html
12 comments:
I think like Jimmy Carter I would like to talk exclusively in superlatives after reading this; this writing is like Lincoln's Gettysburgh address, Four years and ten years ago---- no, really. Excellent.
People may not agree with the content but my God, look at the writing!!!!!
This doesn't even being to do justice to what Moriarty and the American government have done for Nepal.
We are just a shameless and selfish people who know only how to take and not to give back.
At least the thousands of Nepalis that Moriarty's efforts have helped proivde a better future for, have come together in their own way to thank him.
Moriarty is a man of principle and Nepal was lucky to have such a strong personality to help guide our brainless politicians at such a critical point in history.
We will always remember Moriarty and hold him in the highest esteem.
is that bhaire or a misspelled blaire??
and yeah I forgot to say anyone who bases the entire argument on the character of a man like "Sir Winston Churchill" really has to get his facts straight.
Bhaire or Blaire, what difference does it make Abhi?? The fact of the matter remains, you're still "ugly." :-)
Why don't you enlighten us on your academic knowledge of Churchill? Perhaps your contribution can help re-write history....
Plase do fill us with your wisdom because obviously, the rest of us are not at your intellectual level.
Well whatever the shortcomings of Churchill, let me remind blokes like Abhi that when it mattered the most(i.e. Hitler and the Nazis), he called a spade a spade when everyone else saw a heart. More importantly, he stuck t0 his guns and was not waylaid by populist hogwash.
By the way if you wish Abhi you can call me Blaire. I take it as a compliment. A hundred and one Blairs anyday over Prachanda or GPK - ANYDAY, ANYTIME.
I will keep this one short. Yes, Churchill helped overcome the Nazis and thanks to him, but please consider his own writings and some of the critical takes on his life, and you will soon realize he was in fact an admirer of Hitler until the problem hit home and England had to start defending itself.
Point taken Abhi.
You are judging Churchill on the basis of what he DID NOT do. I am looking at him on the basis of what he ultimately DID DO.
Which is more important Abhi? That Churchill had come to his senses and pre-empted Hitler (look at what pre-emption policy is getting for Bush). Or was it correct that Churchill's views changed based on what he saw and eventually, he said enough is enough?
Look around you Abhi.... are you saying that Churchill as an example here is correct (that our stupid Girija bahun will wake up and confront the Maoists) or that Churchill as example is wrong because he appeased the Nazis?
Academic knowledge will only take you as far as you are able to use the knowledge to support your point of view. If you cannot, I would suggest to you that you look for a better academic example instead.
In this case, your evidence does not "support" your argument. It actually undermines it.
So bhaire, blaire, whatever, you're still "ugle." :-)
Do not be offended... this is my observation of your argument, that is all.
Many people admired Mugabe, but people change (and not surprisingly admirers turn to enemies), and calling a spade a spade when it matters is all that matters, not admiring someones writings or thoughts before one goes nuts because of power, this is what is happening to the likes of Prachanda. Actions are what counts not words.
Correction Abhi, Chirchill had warned the English govt. of Hitler well before England was threatened and definitely well before "England had to defend itself". Infact it was before Hitler even took over Poland. He had given assurances that to the English that he had no expansionist intentions(Churchill never bought it, the PM at the time did). England declared war on Germany when Chezkoslovakia was annexed by Hitler.
Every comments are useless if we fail to realize ourselves.
Post a Comment