Combating Terrorism Must Be The Concern of All


Terrorism in any form or manifestation can never do any good, whether it be in the affluent states or the poor smaller nations. It needs no reiteration that terrorism of late has become a bigger threat than had been thought of to the stability of all the countries in the world. Terrorism, as has been noted, is not confined to any particular country or region but has transcended the national boundaries.

The tragic event of 9/11 shows to what extent the terrorists can go in order to fulfil their malevolent and partisan interests. In the course, they only damage the fabric of civilisation and cause untold hardships to the communities living in peace and harmony. The deaths of millions of people every year due to terrorism is a reality.

The violence that has resulted from terrorism has also not left Nepal alone. A peaceful country that it was has been turned into a battlefield for the past decade, all because of the terrorists’ intention of creating anarchy, murdering innocent civilians, abductions, torture and so on. The state in fulfilling its duty is doing its part by mobilising the security forces to contain the insurgency.

The fight against terrorism must not only be viewed in the context of any one nation but all the countries which are affected by insurgency. Any approach based on double standards cannot be justified.

Nepal’s fight against terrorism on the home front is a part of the attempt to weed out the menace globally. What Nepal needs now is the support and goodwill of all friendly nations so that it can achieve success in its fight against terrorism.

Combating terrorism must be the concern of all, and there should be no mincing of words when it is the case of smaller nations. Even as the country completed a quite successful municipal election, in spite of the threats and all out protests from the seven agitating political parties, it had to witness one more outburst from Maoist leader Prachanda.

In fact in a short span of less than ten days, this man, who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Nepalese, spoke out three times. Once when he gave an interview to two highly partisan and political dailies, once when he spoke with the TV channel of democracy promoting Britain, BBC and once when he gave out a general statement via email.

Prachanda, who will be blamed for totally destroying the harmony and peace in the country, seems to be confused and contradicts his own statement. However, what many Nepalese are offended at, is the highly objectionable remarks he has made about the institution of Monarchy.

It is really surprising how BBC of democracy and human rights preaching Britain, chose to broadcast an interview of a person, who has been declared a terrorist and has a red corner notice of the Interpol, the international law enforcement organization.

Will Britain tolerate it if the interview of the mastermind of the London bombings is broadcast by another international TV channel? It is doubtful, as it could not even tolerate the innocence of a commuter, whose only mistake was that he looked different! Meanwhile about the two highly partisan dailies, now at least they should try and keep shut and not shout “Curtailing of press freedom” every time they want to draw the attention of foreigners, even when they know they have done something unethical. How free can a press be, when newspapers are allowed to print the interview of a terrorist wanted internationally and who is responsible for the death of thousands of Nepalese?

Will The Times of India publish the interview of Dawood Ibrahim? Will The Washington Post print the interview of Osama Bin Laden? Will The Guardian give a front page tete-a-tete of the London bomber? National interest, religious beliefs, ethnic sensitivities and such aspects should not be forgotten in the name of press freedom. When a cartoon can cause so much turmoil throughout the world and when even such a “freedom loving” grouping like the EU has had to debate how free a press should be, we here in Nepal have to be much more careful, considering our disadvantages in all sections.

But to come back to the great leader Prachanda, if he really has any feelings for Nepal and the Nepalese, he should first tell his misled followers to lay down their arms and enter the mainstream politics through the the power of ballots, not bullets. He may have gained recognition through violence for now, but the Nepalese will not remain silent if he thinks he can do as he pleases and hurt their sentiment.