Nepali leaders are notorious for their tongue-wagging on international issues of least concern to Nepali interests. Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and Foreign Minister KP Sharma Oli had no business to speak on the hanging of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But both of them poked their noses into one of the most controversial events of the world. They criticised the act by pontificating on the need to eradicate capital punishment from the world. They spoke as if the whole world wanted to know their views on it. Not even the Nepalis, let alone the world, care to know what they think and how they feel about an event of least concern and no consequence to them. Or are they recollecting the killing of 12 Nepali boys in Iraq?

The unwarranted official criticism of Saddam Hussein’s hanging can invite, if noticed at all in any quarter, displeasure. The Americans and the British who are heavily involved in Iraq not only in destroying the last remnant of Hussein’s legacy but also in the Herculean task of establishing democracy in an undemocratic society would take it with a knee jerk. The Iraqi government, if ever it heard about it, may consider it as a whirring message from Timbuktu. So who is going to appreciate the bla bla of Nepali ministers? To my mind, none other than the speakers themselves.

The Muslim world is divided as far as this death sentence is concerned. The Iraqi people are equally divided over this event. Similarly, the Nepali people hold opposite views like in many countries of the world on this issue. It is very indiscreet on the part of the Nepali government to express only one side of public opinion. It could be justified if it counted in any way in any place. We know that it does not count, carries no weight and has no impact anywhere in any way. So why speak for academic interest? The government is not an academia. It is better to keep the mouth shut when the interests of the Nepali people are not at stake. As far as the people are concerned, they are free to express their feelings and hold public demonstrations. Not long ago, the members of our parliament made similar superfluous remarks when there was a military coup in Thailand several months ago. They demonstrated their total ignorance about the Thai situation and made stupid comments on the Thai king, Thai army and Thai politicians.

It was wrong to compare the Thai king with the Nepali king as one commands popular love and another popular hatred. It was wrong to equate the Thai army with that of Nepal because the Thai army has been playing an active political, economic and administrative role as while the Nepali army has never played such a role.

Similarly, there are so many contrasts between the Thai and Nepali societies that they don’t stand on the same footing. The Thai people, for example, are engaged in economic activities unlike the Nepalis meddling in politics. The Thai talk less and work more. But on the contrary, we talk more than we work. They go ahead with economic benefits without caring for moral or ethical values as reflected in the legalised free nightlife. We feel proud of denying ourselves substantial economic gains on flimsy moral and ethical considerations.

Thais worship the Buddha and, by practising and promoting Buddhism, they make it a point to derive material benefits. But in our case we shout at the top of our voices to stress the point that Nepal is the birthplace of Gautam Buddha but don’t think how to generate economic profit from it. We take false pride in renouncing physical pleasure and enjoying poverty.

A king, a general, an army, a coup, a prime minister, a democracy may sound phonetically the same in Thailand and Nepal. But they as different in human response and understanding as the sky and the earth. You criticise the Thai king before a Thai citizen and you make him angry. You criticise the Nepali king before a Nepali citizen and you see him pleased. Similarly, all these terms have different understandings and, accordingly, they arouse completely different responses from Thais and Nepalis.

Thailand denies Nepalis visa on arrival because they have misused Thai hospitality and, hence, such restrictions. That is something very important and vital for the Nepali people who frequently travel in that part of the world. Nepali parliamentarians do not take up this matter of serious concern to the Nepalis. But, instead, they poke their noses into the Thai political developments as if the Nepalis are guardians and protectors of democracy all over the world like the US, the superpower think it is.

Nepali politicians don’t know where Nepal stands in the eyes of the world. How can we expect them to understand how other societies work? We found them bankrupt in their knowledge and understanding of the Thai developments. It is better to keep our mouths shut on others’ affairs when they don’t interfere in our interests than to speak out and prove our stupidity and sloppiness.

Shrestha is a freelance journalist