But it wasn’t to be. The April visit of UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon, which would have been the first by the top UN official after Kofi Annan’s Nepal visit in 2001, instead had to be put off (if it has not been cancelled outright behind the corridors of power).
Ideally, all the concerned stakeholders—the government, political parties, human rights activists and the intelligentsia—should have stood shoulder to shoulder in welcoming Ban Ki-moon. So far as his itinerary goes, he was scheduled to arrive in Kathmandu on April 28 before flying to Lumbini on April 29 to co-chair an international conference with UCPN (Maoist) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal.
Ban’s visit would have been fundamentally different to Nepal visit of any other foreign dignitary. As the head of the UN—the institution founded for global peace and stability in 1945, and which has contributed its expertise to facilitate the political process in Nepal post 2006—he would have been the perfect ambassador for the cause of peace and stability in Nepal. The visit would also have carried an enormous symbolic value, besides enriching the country’s profile in the international arena.
First, it would help correct a gross error regarding the birthplace of the Light of Asia, Gautam Buddha. There have been countless reports in international media that Buddha was born, not in present-day Nepal, but in India. It seems the southern neighbor is still inculcating the same idea in millions of its youths through erroneous textbooks. No wonder, then, Bollywood director Nikhil Advani should have one of his actors say Buddha was born in India in Chandani Chowk to China (the movie caused quite a stir in Kathmandu in January 2009). Even more alarmingly, even an intellectual of Fareed Zakaria’s repute made the same error in his much-acclaimed book The Post-American World. These cannot be taken as coincidence.
India, it is reported, has built fake Lumbini and Tilaurakot in Aligadhawa, in Siddharthanagar district of Uttar Pradesh which abuts Kapilbastu. To add credence to this false premise, India has rechristened Piparhawa of that region as Kapilbastu! Reportedly, the fake Lumbini receives quiet a hoard of Buddhist pilgrims who go there to witness Buddha’s birth place. Ban Ki-moon’s Lumbini visit would have gone a long way in correcting this misperception.
Second, his visit would have attracted huge international media attention on Nepal. Despite the so-called media revolution at home, Nepal still remains a tiny nation that few in the world know about. And when it has drawn some attention, it has been for all the wrong reasons. For instance, probably the most aired news coming out of Nepal, ever, was that of the 2001 Royal Massacre. Then, it was news of the bloody insurgency which made some headlines abroad. The UN chief’s visit would have brought some much-needed positive international focus to this beleaguered country.
Third, it would have exerted moral pressure on Maoist Supremo Pushpa Kamal Dahal (who is also the head of the High Level National Steering Committee for Lumbini Development Project) to settle the peace process without further ado. To the great relief of the nation, Dahal seems more committed than ever toward peace and constitution, even at the cost of a possible split in his party. For the moment, all these opportunities are lost.
What kept Ban ki-Moon from coming to Nepal? Some sections of the media have put the blame entirely on the shoulders of a few individuals that were actively campaigning against Ban’s visit. If the individuals in question were really that instrumental in the cancellation of Ban’s visit, they will be judged by history. But I believe these individuals were mere catalysts behind the whole affair.
The fear among opposition parties was that if Ban Ki-moon stepped on Nepali soil at this juncture, the credit for this would go to Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Babauram Bhattarai.
That Dahal would be able to redefine his image as a peacemaker overnight, and Bhattarai would add to his credibility in the international arena. It is sanctimonious of some sections in the society to continue to portray Bhattarai and Dahal as coldblooded “killers” in perpetuity. Even if Bhattarai and Dahal were trying to wash their blood-soaked hands with Ban ki-Moon’s aura, I do not see why they should not have been allowed to do so.
It would have been in the best interest of the country for Nepali Congress and CPN-UML to join hands with the government in creating a favorable environment for the visit. Notably, even NC’s Minendra Rijal and UML’s Mangal Siddhi Manandhar are members in Lumbini Project. But both the parties showed an almost knee-jerk reaction against the proposed visit. NC president Sushil Koirala was vocally against it, while UML opposed it by maintaining an eerie silence. When the hosts are thus divided, the guest hardly feels welcome. It was appalling to hear Congress intellectual Dr Ram Sharan Mahat “welcoming” the deferral at an interaction at Reporter’s Club. To buttress their stand, supporters of the deferral have said that Nepali leaders should be focused on peace and constitution, not in welcoming foreign guests. I wonder how much a one-day visit by Ban ki-Moon would have affected the twin process over which the leaders across the political spectrum have already squandered over 1,400 days.
Ban ki-Moon’s visit is now in limbo. Apparently, NC and UML want him to come to Nepal when one of them is leading the government. But given NC’s and UML’s childish reasoning against the visit, the Maoists will be perfectly justified in lobbying against a future visit during the government leadership of NC or UML, tit for tat, if you will. This misguided attempt to hold the Maoists responsible for every ill that has befallen the country only shows to the rest of the world how naïve and shortsighted our political leadership is. Buddha would surely not be bemused at this tug-of-war over him.
Related story
No more smelly feet: 8 simple tips
