India’s security interests demand that it star dealing with King Gyanendra
Nepal today is a crucible resting on a tripod. The King, the RNA and the elite constitute one leg, the political parties constitute the second and the Maoists the third. All three are bitterly antagonistic towards each other. The crucible has the most explosive contents -- the ambitions of the King, the divided political parties with their leaders with their outsized egos and the rebellious and violent Maoists. Watching these antagonists keenly are the Indians, the Chinese, the Pakistanis, the British and the Americans. India’s chief concern is to prevent this chemical reaction from reaching critical mass and it is in our long-term interest to ensure that Nepal is always friendly to India and at peace with itself.
Indian reactions in February and subsequently gave the impression that there was a certain amount of tentativeness. We seem to be caught in a time warp and quickly decry “set backs to democracy” in Nepal or Myanmar but do not mind supping with other dictators in the neighbourhood. Our statements did not give the impression of a confident regional power with global aspirations. Our public reprimand of the King could have been better substituted with a private rebuke. At least we need to acknowledge that the King was trying to fight the Maoists even though the methods were not the best. We ourselves might have been reluctant to take a strong stand against the Maoists because of coalition compulsions. It was unfair to hector the king and then expect him not to play the China card. It was as if Gyanendra expected the standard Indian response and was willing to gamble on this knowing that he could call the bluff.
The present king is more of an activist than his brother was. It is not surprising that King Gyanendra carried out his palace coup and it was never a question of “if”, only a question of “when” he would take over. Self-confident and contemptuous of politicians, he felt that they were incapable of solving Nepal’s problems and only he was ordained to deliver. Gyanendra’s game plan includes incarcerating the politicians from time to time or publicly humiliating them. Neither courses of action will serve him well for the future. He needs above ground political support to tackle the Maoists. If the Maoists are not strong enough yet to take on the RNA neither is the RNA in any position to wipe out the Maoists. A growing political vacuum will only lead to greater chances of a military coup should Nepal continue to slide down hill as it inevitably will if the King does not strengthen the politicians. He must himself keep an exit clause for himself for it is essential in Nepal that Kingship in some form should remain intact. There has to be a totem pole for the people who are multi-ethnic and multi religious. But it has to be a Benevolent Royal. A good role model could be the King of Bhutan.
Nepal’s politicians are themselves to blame for their present predicament. Equipped with little else than monumental egos, mutual suspicion, inexperience and covered in corruption they spent most of their 14 years of democracy squabbling endlessly in total disregard of the plight of their people. In all these years of democracy with 13 prime ministers, precious little was done to alleviate poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, feudalism and caste discrimination.
Years of misrule by the Ranas and the Kings and with no solace provided by democracy has enabled the Maoists today to control 68 of 75 districts of Nepal in varying degrees. The Maoists claim that they have already won their battle against the Nepalese Police, are now ready to take on the Nepalese Army and would finally take on the Indian Army. They want the monarchy out and a republican government installed for which they are willing to kidnap, kill and maim. India’s worry is that these Maoists are tied up with our Naxalites with their Revolutionary Corridor extending from Bihar through Jharkhand, Orissa, Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh down to Andhra Pradesh and beyond. 500 persons were killed in India last year because of Maoist-Naxalite violence whereas no one had been a victim of Kashmir related violence outside Kashmir the same year. So when we worry for Nepal we also worry for ourselves.
As the crackdown on the Maoists begins, their leaders and cadres have begun to seek shelter in districts bordering Nepal from Uttaranchal to West Bengal and Sikkim. On an average 2000 Nepalese were fleeing to India as a result of Maoist actions. This was before the crackdown. Now the exodus is because of fear of the King as well as the Maoists.
The threat from Nepal is not that the King is about to march into Bihar to capture Patna (no conquerors so far) but a victory for the Nepalese Maoists in Nepal through an armed struggle will only encourage their Indian counterparts. Nepal is the closest to us in many ways apart from treaties that highlight this. Stronger than that are family ties from royalty down to the common man; there are ties of religion, education, livelihood, residence and marriage. One third of Nepal’s population is of Indian origin. There are six million Nepali speakers in India.
It is far more important for India to have a friendly Nepal. It is less important if Nepal is ruled by an absolute monarch, a constitutional monarch, a parliamentary democracy or a peoples’ democracy so long as it has India’s security interests in mind. Assistance for economic development, trade and infrastructure development and security forces would be automatically axiomatic. Nepal sees itself sandwiched between two giants and it is natural for it to try to play one against the other. The point is does India have enough clout to tell the other powers that India and Nepal have a special relationship.
As it happens we have to learn to deal with the King. He is the only symbol of authority left and spurning him or staying aloof will not help. We need to get into some private consultancies and unequivocal messages. The King must understand that if he wishes to preserve monarchy he will have to voluntarily yield ground before it is snatched away from him. He will have to get real and accept the role of the political parties. He will also have to accept that instability in Nepal is a vital security risk for India just as much as it is in Bihar or Manipur. India’s security interests need to be safeguarded and – this is important -- that India will make every effort to ensure this. The King has to appreciate that India’s security is safeguarded by strengthening Nepal’s sovereignty not by undermining it.
The Maoists will have to be brought to the negotiating table and they will eventually accept a constitutional role. The Maoists must realise and accept that insurgencies, particularly in the 21st century, have chances of succeeding only if they have state support. In this case they have none in India. The politicians will somehow have to mature and grow out of their egos, think a little more of the people they represent – not that this is happening to any great extent elsewhere. They and the King have to work together.
If all this happens then one of the obstacles for the region to slip out of backwardness and poverty would have been removed. If not, India will remain tied down by troubles nearer home, forever described as a country with a bright future and forever unable to attain its potential.
Source : Hindustan Times 16th may 2005
0 comments:
Post a Comment