NEW DELHI, 9 March 2005 — Nepal’s Foreign Minister Ramesh Nath Pandey expressed confidence that India and other countries would support his country’s terror war against Maoists and “efforts to protect democracy.” Since King Gyanendra’s decision to seize power, the Himalayan kingdom, geographically nestled between India and China, has faced strong criticism from India and Western democracies. India has suspended military aid for fighting against Maoists.
Pandey’s three-day working visit, the first high-level visit, following the royal takeover on Feb. 1, aimed at reconciliation. On his return to Katmandu today, Pandey will covey India’s views to King Gyanendra and his government.
Expressing confidence about the impact of his visit and the talks he held with Indian External Affairs Minister K. Natwar Singh, Pandey said: “I have known Natwar Singh for a long time. The meeting was very useful.”
“I am confident that after our talks, the understanding (on India’s part) has been enriched and areas of cooperation will be enlarged.”
Asserting that the royal takeover “is in favor of democracy and peace,” the minister said that he had explained to Natwar the “compulsions” that prompted the king to take the measures.
Nepal has “wasted three-and-a-half years and paid a heavy price just to learn that without having peace and security, there cannot be elections. And without elections, you cannot bring in multiparty democracy back on track,” Pandey said.
“The countries and the people who really believe in democracy will definitely support Nepal’s war against terrorism and its efforts to protect democracy,” Pandey said.
On whether he had sought resumption of military aid halted by India, Pandey evaded to reply.
During his meeting with Natwar, Pandey explained the reasons why the king had taken steps to dismiss the multiparty government, declare emergency, detain political party leaders and impose censorship on the press. He also conveyed the king’s assurance that steps are being taken to relax some of these measures in the near future. Pandey reiterated the king’s commitment to restoring multiparty democracy at the earliest.
On India’s part, Natwar conveyed “disappointment” at the measures taken by the king. Expressing grave concern, he pointed out that these measures “could endanger the institution of monarchy itself.” Besides, since the royal takeover, developments only demonstrated that Nepal’s security situation had not improved and the country was facing a “deteriorating economic situation.”
