It's a form of protest - dignified and politically correct.
Lets look at the events first.
A democratic government in Nepal has been thrown off by a hugely unpopular monarch (Nepalese see his hands soaked in the brutal murder of the popular royal family too). To quote my friend who is studying out here in US, he has not beeb anle to contact his family either via internet or phone. The communication was taken down to contain the protests and spread of discontent.
All in all, a daylight murder of democracy.
Having the same king address the summit and share the platform with him would be tantamounting to supporting and endorsing his stance. Atleast till the normalcy is restored and facts known, this is not acceptable.
I am glad that India blocked the Summit. Soemone had to take a stand and i, as an Indian, fully support it.
There was another issue, as has been pointed out by the BD media, the assasination of SAMS Kibria. I have been following the news and the subsequent development closely. I have read editorials, letters and news following the assasination. If it painted any picture, let me say that it is far from one that can be brushed aside and ignored.
Importantly, It could have been overlooked and ignored and the SAARC summit would've gone on. But both the issues put together do present a strong reason for India backing out. It has got nothing to do with showing any big-brotherly attitude or snubbing BD. It's just a matter of stand and there are no two-thoughts about it, not in my mind atleast.
Pakistan foreign minister talking about his "no-objection" is understandable. Besides gaining the brownie points in the process which counts for little, of all countries in the world, Pakistan taking a hard-stance against the murder of democracy would be a joke to say the least.
|