Saturday, October 20, 2007

nepal_Monarchy_separatists

Dear Dr. Adhikari,

I came upon your article, “
Nepali Congress under Koirala: The Great Betrayal”, by accident while checking for the most recent articles, published worldwide, which make reference to the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Interestingly enough, I saw that a reference was made in a Nepalese website, a country which, as the following search may attest, is of some interest to me:

http://sarbazekuchak.blogspot.com/search?q=nepal

I do not pretend to be familiar with the intricacies of Nepalese politics, but as one of the millions of Iranian victims of the 1979 Islamist Reaction, and a living witness of what befell my country in the name of “freedom” and “democracy”, I am familiar with the causes and consequences of the tragic and disastrous event to which you make reference, and hope that this brief note regarding one of the most humiliating chapters in my nation’s history will be well received, especially as you appear patriotic and clearly seem to value Nepal’s independence and sovereignty.

While taking the liberty to make slight alterations in the first of two paragraphs for the sake of objectivity (unlike the
BBC, I do not believe the Shah “fled” Iran) and clarity, I quote,

Twenty-eight years before, in 1979, when the Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, had [left] his country following months of violent protests against his regime, many democrats and liberals thought that the roadblock to democracy has finally been set aside. In fact, just as G. P. Koirala betrayed King Gyanendra and most of the commoners of Nepal, Dr Shapur Bahktiar, the man who [the] Shah had appointed as Prime Minister just one month before [his departure], too had disingenuously forced [the King] to leave the country.

The person, who the increasing number of violent clashes between security forces and anti-Shah demonstrators established in power, was Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini. With the support of the liberals and commies, very much like the support of the imperfect ‘loktantrabadis’ of Nepal to the Maoists, Khomeini finally came to assert control over the course leading to a revolutionary Islamic Council to replace what he called the "illegal government" of Iran. Whatever little democracy the Iranians had during the period of Shah has become a dream for the people since then. After all, democracy is a process not a product, and no Khomeini can ensure it – whether he creates a constitution through his religious decree, or a constituent assembly under the shadow of bloodhounds and separatists.


To begin with, the statement that with the Shah’s departure, “many democrats and liberals thought that the roadblock to democracy has finally been set aside”, suggests that Iranian democrats and liberals, if not the actual participants in the revolution, had looked forward to seeing the Shah’s departure and welcomed the “revolution”, when in fact even before His Majesty’s departure, while the violent demonstrations were taking place, the democrats and liberals, many of whom worked for the government, had warned of the consequences if such a “revolution” were to occur. The Islamist Reaction, contrary to what is said by its sponsors, was neither democratic nor liberal, and Iranian democrats and liberals not only played no part in it (unless Islamists, fascists and American, European or Soviet mercenaries can be thought of as democrats and liberals), they were in fact its very targets. No Iranian that could be called a democrat or a liberal thought that, with the Shah’s departure, the roadblock to democracy “has finally been set aside.” On the contrary! Having warned against the Islamist Reaction, and predicted its consequences, they knew that the nation’s very independence had been lost, never mind that a “roadblock to democracy” (an absurd way of putting it, given the nature of the criminal republican regime that took over) had been created!

Interestingly, of the liberal democrats, one was Prime Minister Shapur Bahktiar himself. Here, there are Iranians who do speak of his disingenuousness, but I personally do not, and consider the view itself to be disingenuous. He was a Monarchist, and bravely accepted the Shah’s request in face of violent and lunatic opposition from his own party. Dr. Bakhtiar’s desire that the Shah leave Iran was only a last attempt to save Iran from self-immolation, and should not be viewed as a reflection of a supposed disingenuity.

He was assassinated some years later by the French secret service, with murderers from HezbAllah (Party of God) doing the actual killing.

Good luck to you, and may the people of Nepal never succumb to the plots cooked up by the enemies of your country’s independence.

Khorshid

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home