Various centre-left parties have also condemned Nepal King's act and demanded immediate restoration of democracy in the Himalayan kingdom. The CPI-M decided to organise a national convention for restoration of democracy in Nepal. The communist heavyweight Sitaram Yechury strongly condemned the abrogation of democracy in Nepal. Openly challenging New Delhi’s policy vis-a-vis Nepal, India’s communist parties are piling pressure on the Prime Minister to adopt a soft line towards Maoists in the neighbouring country. Yechury even declared that Nepal’s Maoists “deserve” India’s full support for the sake of democracy. 

So much concern! For the sake of democracy? That too in our neighbouring country? Look, who is talking! What happens when democracy is openly ridiculed in our own country in Goa? Ironically, the same Sitaram Yechury evades a poser whether it was justified to dismiss a democratically elected government that had won the vote of confidence. Where has the concern for democracy disappeared now? Why does it not emerge here? In 1975 when Emergency was imposed in India and democracy was murdered, it was the CPI under S A Dange that had supported the insufferable Emergency.

And who are the Maoists who “deserve" India’s full support for the sake of democracy? Misguided by an ideology discarded by history, these terrorists of the red brigade, drawing inspiration from communist China and support from their Indian counterparts, have killed thousands of innocent people in a bloody civil war in Nepal since 1996. Maoist threats and violence have undermined Nepal’s economic, political, and social development and demonstrated a clear disregard for the well-being of the Nepali people. Their interest lies in establishing, through a violent revolution, a communist state, an extension of the communist-Chinese regime, and not in the restoration of democracy in Nepal. Communist history all over the world shows that communism has always been associated with undemocratic or totalitarian governments.

Any kind of support to Maoist insurgents would imply encouraging through a violent and bloody agitation a Chinese rule in Nepal. A communist Nepal can never be in India’s interest, it would be having China at our doorstep. The experience of 1962 tells us that we do not wish to share longer borders with China. We have already committed a grave mistake when we allowed China to take over Tibet unopposed. We cannot afford to make the same mistake in case of Nepal. With China as our immediate neighbour the threat of a Chinese invasion would be real every minute. We already have more than our share of hostile neighbours to cope with. We cannot afford to make additions to the list.

More over, the Nepalese Maoists have links with the Indian communist terrorist outfits like PWG and MCC which are active in Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh and have killed hundreds of innocent people. Support to Maoist rebels in Nepal would imply increased naxalite violence and instability in India. The bloody civil war, which has practically destroyed Nepal, will then extend to India.

The threat of a Chinese invasion and the possibility of a civil war are reasons enough for India to be concerned in her own interest, if not for Nepal. But our Indian communists who have no hesitation in harming their own country, who shamelessly and traitorously welcomed the Chinese in 1962 want the Indian government to support the violent rebels “for the sake of democracy”. They have always been anti-national and when not pro-Soviet Union, they have been pro-Communist China but never pro-India.

And the Indian government which is gravely concerned about the “serious setback to the cause of democracy” in Nepal welcomes the undemocratic move of the Governor of Goa simply because it is in favour of its party. The predecessor of the same Congress party had most undemocratically imposed Emergency in 1975. Even within the Congress party democracy has not been able to secure a place of respect. This is apparent from the “maai-baap” attitude of all the Congress leaders when they fall at the feet of the “bahu” of the Nehru-Gandhi family. Ability still finds no credit in the party. Descent from the one anglicized royal family remains to be the prime qualification to head the party.

Grave concern for democracy does not deter the Congress and communists’ enthusiasm about friendly relations with the military regime of Pakistan. They are eager to dine with the dictator, engage in bi-lateral talks and trade, play cricket while the people of Pakistan are crushed under the oppressive dictatorship and militant insurgents cruelly shed innocent Indian blood.

Why are the hearts of these undemocratic people bleeding for the sake of democracy in Nepal? Owing to their support for the undemocratic moves within India and friendship with the military dictatorship in Pakistan, these so-called seculars and communists do not even qualify to comment on the situation in Nepal. The ones who have themselves openly mocked the Indian democracy are today acting as the custodians of democracy in Nepal. The ones who had justified the Emergency and the Goa governor’s undemocratic act, have no qualms in shaking hands with one of the world’s worst ten dictators but are skeptical about sharing a stage with the Nepalese monarch at the Saarc summit. Obviously, there is more to it than meets the eye.

The real cause of the much hue and cry over the breakdown of democratic machinery in Nepal is in fact not the concern for democracy but vested interests. It is amazing to see how the pseudo-secular and communist parties are concerned for their counter parts abroad. The King’s imposition of Emergency has come as a great set back to the cause of establishment of a communist secular state in Nepal. This has disturbed the scribes of Sitaram Yechury who were getting prepared to once again welcome their comrades from China after it had successfully taken over Nepal.

Nepal is the only Hindu state in the world and is under attack from all sides. While the Christian missionaries are busy in the proselytizing the poor, illiterate and the unemployed, the number of Islamic fundamentalists is also on the rise. The ISI is very active and Islamic countries are funding madrasas breeding anti-Hindu and anti-India terrorism. To top this, the communist Maoist insurgency has rocked the civil life. The most surprising aspect is that in spite of conflicting ideologies the Maoists, the Church and the Islamic fundamentalists have formed a nexus to bring down the Hindu rule.

The pseudo secular leaders of India have always given a cold shoulder to the Hindu Nepal. In its enthusiasm to promote secularism, India failed to play the Big Brother role for Nepal. At times when the Nepalese monarchy looked up to India for support, the pseudo-secular Nehru very badly let it down. India’s silence in the Chinese invasion of Tibet brought communism at the doorstep of Nepal. In fact, India, especially border-state Bihar, has been harbouring the Maoist terrorists. Instead of stern action against these terrorists by the state governments, the centre-left parties in power in India have given the communist violence almost the stature of state sponsored terrorism.

India cannot shirk off her share of responsibility or guilt in putting Nepal in a messy spot. It is important for India to help Nepal crush the communist insurgency by all means, even if it involves an undemocratic move of imposing emergency. Saving Nepal from communism is in India’s own interest as well as Nepal’s. Before being gravely concerned “for the sake of democracy” we need to be gravely concerned “for the sake of our Independence and stability”.