A few deeply worrisome foreign policy developments have occurred in Nepal in recent months. Before the dust stirred by Prime Minister KP Oli 's visits to India and China has settled, the India-EU statement and Mohana Ansari 's statement have put Nepal into sharp and unflattering diplomatic focus. However, much of it is a storm in a teacup generated by partisan arm-chair generals.
Sure there are serious issues in which Prime Minister Oli should be held to account. For example, Oli has bragged big, but delivered little in the post-earthquake reconstruction, in bringing piped gas to your kitchen, and in phasing out river crossings on a single cable within two years. He deserves criticism for his failure.
But he has also accomplished a few things. For instance, he has eased the Indian economic embargo without compromising Nepal 's vital interests, the embargo that was imposed before he became prime …show more content…
Some portray Oli as a spectacular success and others as an ignominious failure. Where has objectivity gone in Nepal?
More specifically, although the India-EU statement is unfortunate, it has been blown out of proportion. India, which has been facing minority revolts in Kashmir, West Bengal and elsewhere, should have resisted the temptation to display in the India-EU statement its heavy-handed dissatisfaction with Nepal 's new constitution, in solidarity with a small section of the Nepali population. But Indian politicians and diplomats are not always in their wisest.
At the same time, if Nepal 's diplomacy was proactive, it could have prevented the unflattering portrayal of Nepal in the India-EU statement. Unfortunately, our diplomacy is passive, and reactive at best. When I was new there, a senior official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had advised me to keep my boss happy, my mouth shut, and my hands folded if I wanted to earn desirable postings, timely promotions, and a respectable
Sure there are serious issues in which Prime Minister Oli should be held to account. For example, Oli has bragged big, but delivered little in the post-earthquake reconstruction, in bringing piped gas to your kitchen, and in phasing out river crossings on a single cable within two years. He deserves criticism for his failure.
But he has also accomplished a few things. For instance, he has eased the Indian economic embargo without compromising Nepal 's vital interests, the embargo that was imposed before he became prime …show more content…
Some portray Oli as a spectacular success and others as an ignominious failure. Where has objectivity gone in Nepal?
More specifically, although the India-EU statement is unfortunate, it has been blown out of proportion. India, which has been facing minority revolts in Kashmir, West Bengal and elsewhere, should have resisted the temptation to display in the India-EU statement its heavy-handed dissatisfaction with Nepal 's new constitution, in solidarity with a small section of the Nepali population. But Indian politicians and diplomats are not always in their wisest.
At the same time, if Nepal 's diplomacy was proactive, it could have prevented the unflattering portrayal of Nepal in the India-EU statement. Unfortunately, our diplomacy is passive, and reactive at best. When I was new there, a senior official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had advised me to keep my boss happy, my mouth shut, and my hands folded if I wanted to earn desirable postings, timely promotions, and a respectable