Those who rule India from their power base in Delhi may not be wrong to view Nepal as their closest neighbor as well as ally, but whether the denizens of this largely mountainous country sharing a northern border with China – through Tibet – agree to such a perception has been a contentious issue ever since the British left the subcontinent in 1947.
Image above: The south face of Mt. Kailash, or the “sapphire face” of the crystal-shaped mountain on the confluence of India-Nepal-China border. While on the top, when you see below, to the south spreads the broad rolling plain that holds Lake Manasarovar (the blessed lake and its neighboring Rakshas Lake (the demon lake). Beyond far to the south, rises the high Himalaya, which forms the border between Tibet, Nepal, and India.
FROSTY WELCOME FOR INDIA IN NEPAL
by Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU – Those who rule India from their power base in Delhi may not be wrong to view Nepal as their closest neighbor as well as ally, but whether the denizens of this largely mountainous country sharing a northern border with China – through Tibet – agree to such a perception has been a contentious issue ever since the British left the subcontinent in 1947.
Although the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, concluded in July 1950, sought to institutionalize the assertive posture Delhi thought it had inherited from its colonial masters, the Nepalis have consistently challenged this pact, describing it as an unequal treaty from the very day it was signed.
The treaty has often been compared with the pact the Soviets imposed on Finland in 1948.
The people of Nepal, although ethnically diverse and politically polarized, have always been against what they perceive as Delhi’s bullying behavior. This week has been no exception.
First, Indian External Affairs Minister S M Krishna was greeted with black flags by those protesting against encroachment into Nepal’s border regions. While Krishna’s consultations with government leaders were to contain India’s offer of assistance during its current democratic transition, his meeting with the top Maoist leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal (popularly known as Prachanda), was utilized to deliver a tough message to restrain anti-Indian rhetoric used to promote Nepali nationalism.
The customary joint press statement, issued on January 17 in Kathmandu at the end of Krishna’s three-day visit, restricted itself to alluding to “age-old, multifaceted relations” between the countries. But Krishna’s office in New Delhi released a separate statement saying the visiting minister “conveyed deep disappointment at the baseless attacks on India by the Maoist leadership”.
This statement is indicative of the tough talks that Prachanda had with Krishna.
Left: Nepal’s popular leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, a Maoist, is also known as Prachanda.
The Maoist party Prachanda leads, commands 40% of the seats in the 601-strong Constituent Assembly, which is working on a new constitution expected to be promulgated by May 28 this year.
Krishna’s warning was not taken too seriously,as was evident at the start of the four-day visit to Nepal of the Indian army chief, General Deepak Kapoor, starting on Tuesday. He, too, felt the heat from the outset at Kathmandu airport.
Over a dozen Maoist cadres were detained for several hours for waving black flags at the Indian visitor. On the same day, Maoists staged a rally and held a public meeting in front of the Indian Embassy.
One of Prachanda’s deputies, Narayankaji Shrestha, told the audience that while the Maoists were in favor of maintaining normal, neighborly relations with India, what they opposed was Delhi’s continuous interference in Nepal’s internal affairs.
India officially always denies allegations of interference, but there have been occasions when such claims have proved true. One such occasion was in June 2006 – shortly after the April uprising against king Gyanendra’s absolute rule. An Indian parliamentary delegation visited Nepal, and one of delegates, S Sudhakar Reddy, observed after returning home:
“Nepal is at the political crossroads and should be allowed to decide its policies independently without any intervention.” He did not mince words over where the interference was coming from.
“Keeping in view the past experiences with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, it is better that we keep away from the internal affairs of that country.”
Unlike Nepal’s other political parties, the Maoist party has displayed skill at winning over the public and arousing a sense of nationalism. The leadership has explained that it has no quarrel with India as a country and its people; its confrontation is with the rulers in Delhi representing the political elite, bureaucracy, defense establishment and intelligence agencies.
Kapoor’s name surfaced precisely in this context. In a fiery speech he gave on the last day of a three-day nationwide general strike on December 22, Prachanda asked how the Indian army chief could “publicly advise” Nepal’s army chief, General Chhatraman Singh Gurung, to reject a proposition aimed at integrating former Maoist combatants into the national army. (These combatants numbering nearly 20,000 are sheltered in United Nations-supervised camps.)
It is a sensitive subject and is under official negotiations in line with peace accords signed ending the decade-long Maoist insurgency (1996-2006). There are serious apprehensions that if the integration issue is not resolved fairly, the whole plan for promulgating the new constitution on time might not be achieved.
Nepal could face a constitutional crisis of an unprecedented nature.
After quitting the premiership last May amid controversy regarding his decision to sack the then army chief, Prachanda has toured various parts of the country, telling the people about Delhi’s excesses with regard to Nepal. The issues he has chosen to raise include Nepal’s notorious and mysterious palace massacre of June 2001, which claimed the lives of king Birendra, his queen and the crown prince.
Echoing the perceptions of a section of the population, he said the monarch was killed for being a nationalist. Prachanda has also alluded to the death of another firebrand nationalist leader, Madan Bhandari, 16 years ago.
After Kapoor’s remarks to the media came at a New Delhi reception during his Nepali counterpart’s tour of India in December. Although the Nepal army and its ministry did not react to Prachanda’s objection, the Indian Embassy found it expedient to clear the air on the eve of Kapoor’s reciprocating trip to Nepal. His remarks, an embassy press release said, did not “reflect the government of India’s position” on the issue of “PLA integration” in Nepal army.
The Maoists’ annoyance was further exacerbated when their cadres intercepted a caravan of military vehicles “quietly” entering Nepal. This led them to accuse the Nepal army of importing weapons that could be used against them, defying provisions of the peace accords.
Later, it was officially clarified that the fleet of 100 vehicles were carrying non-lethal equipment from India.
Indian media reports have said that New Delhi has been embarrassed more than once by Kapoor’s publicly aired thoughts.
A seminar speech in which he spoke of two-front war against China and Pakistan was one such occasion.
MK Narayanan, until recently India’s national security advisor, has also influenced political events in Nepal in recent years. Weeks before Nepal went to the polls in April 2008, he appeared on television saying that India favored the Nepali Congress party and its leader, Girija Prasad Koirala. This prompted other political parties to be apprehensive about Indian designs on Nepal.
Narayanan’s statement left room for speculation that Delhi had a hand in the sudden creation of new regional parties in the southern plains bordering the Indian states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh just a few months before the constituent assembly election.
That Narayanan, who worked as the chief coordinator of India’s intelligence agencies, was involved in matters relating to Indian policies towards Nepal surfaced in a recent article in an Indian newspaper. “The Maoist menace at home and the mess in Nepal bear further testimony to his sterling abilities,” said a reporter from The Pioneer in a January 17 piece reviewing Narayanan’s performance.
In the initial years of Nepal’s political crisis, which was accentuated by the royal coup in early 2005, Delhi, Washington and London used to consult Kathmandu to find a durable solution. But, over time, both Washington and London perhaps thought it wise to “outsource” the job to Delhi.
And Delhi’s political masters apparently found it useful to depend on the works and reports of agencies headed by persons like Kapoor and Narayanan.
Is India alone to be blamed for the political crisis in Nepal? Experienced politicians admit that it is often the Nepali side which, unwittingly or otherwise, leaves space for India to intervene. One such person is Prakash Chandra Lohani, a former foreign minister. Some of the politicians have gone out of the way to “invite” interference, he recently told a radio interviewer.
Who then bells the cat? Maoists claim they can, and they think they actually have. Regardless, Nepal is entering a crucial phase ahead of the May 28 deadline for issuing the new constitution.
Dhruba Adhikary is a Kathmandu-based journalist.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the ‘Wonders of Pakistan’. The contents of this article too are the sole responsibility of the author(s). WoP will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this post.
YOUR COMMENT IS IMPORTANT
DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF YOUR COMMENT