Round The World

New Delhi, 6 May 2009

Nepal In Turmoil

DELHI’S FOREIGN POLICY QUANDARY

By Monish Tourangbam

(School of International Studies, JNU)

As if the severe humanitarian crisis in neighbouring Sri Lanka and the rising influence of the Taliban in Pakistan was not enough, India has another foreign policy quandary in its plate. The rapidly deteriorating situation in the nascent republic of Nepal has seriously increased New Delhi’s woes regarding the state of security and stability in the region. Clearly, developments in these countries have spill-over consequences for India and weigh heavily on its foreign policy calculations.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh acknowledged that the unfolding crisis in Nepal had added to the country's concerns about troubles in the neighbourhood. "Today, there is lack of peace and stability in our neighbouring nations, be it Nepal, Pakistan or Sri Lanka. It (the developments) can also affect the security situation in our country," he warned. But, being an election season, the UPA Government seems to be more cautious than usual in responding to these crises enveloping the region.

The developments in Nepal erupted after a Cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal (alias Prachanda) decided to sack the Army Chief Gen Rookmangud Katawal. The decision drew harsh criticism and failed to gain support from even the allies of the Maoist-led Government. Things worsened after President Ram Baran Yadav refused to acknowledge the decision. The situation went into a downward spiral when Prachanda gave in his resignation. The situation as it stands now is the most grave in Nepal since the decade-long civil war between the Maoist and the Army came to an end in 2006.

As New Delhi grapples with this rapidly deteriorating situation, it has had to fend off charges leveled against it by the Maoists. They have accused India of meddling with the internal affairs of their country and of being responsible for the Government’s ouster. As he gave in his resignation, Prachanda himself became the spokesperson of these accusations against New Delhi.

During his first official visit to the country, he had made an extra effort to tone down his alter-ego-- Prachanda (the fierce one). Now, it seems that he is more than eager to return to his true self. The outgoing Nepal PM said his party was ready to maintain "cordial relations" with neighbouring countries, but would "not accept any intervention".

"I will quit government rather than remain in power by bowing down to the foreign elements and reactionary forces," Prachanda said in what was widely interpreted as a reference to India. The Foreign Ministry was quick to dismiss the charges as baseless and opined that New Delhi was in favour of a political consensus and a smooth democratic transition in Kathmandu.

As far as New Delhi’s priorities are concerned, it is no rocket science to discern that it will always be apprehensive of any move toward totalitarianism in the region. The country, in its entire independent history, has had to grapple with military dictatorships in Pakistan and a possible move towards communist totalitarianism in Nepal was always going to be some discomfort. New Delhi’s concern over the way Maoists tried to expand their control over the State is no secret.

Moreover, the Maoists’ charges of foreign interference (read India) in its internal politics itself, smells of foreign influence (read Beijing). Before Prachanda sacked the Army chief, senior Maoist leader and Finance Minister Dr. Baburam Bhattarai had sought to reassure New Delhi not to worry about Nepal-China relations. Again, it is no secret that New Delhi is apprehensive of the “red dragon” influence in the region. Even before making his first official visit to Delhi, Prachanda had made a so-called unofficial visit to China to attend the Olympic Games.

Last year, the Maoist won an unprecedented victory in the elections and came to power, albeit in alliance with other parties. The Maoist always desired to form a government of its own and establish a communist one-party rule in Kathmandu, following the model in Beijing. In fact, the ambitions of the Maoist after their electoral victory have to a large extent hindered the more important task of writing the Nepalese Constitution, a goal which is of primary concern to the Indian government as well.

Nepal has been under monarchical regime for years, which finally fell apart when an agreement in 2006 opened the way for the erstwhile Maoist guerilla forces to enter the political mainstream. Entering the corridors of power through democratic means, the Maoist brought in the winds of change in Nepal. However, recent events reiterate the fact that democracy is just not about elections and voting.

No doubt the Maoist brought a change of monumental proportions in Nepal but all forms of transition need time and painful consensus building process for a ‘soft landing’. Decisions taken in haste and without taking others into confidence can only derail the gains already made. This is exactly what Prachanda has done by deciding to sack the Army chief and then resign, when faced with opposition from the President and allies.

At the same time, going over the Prime Minister’s decisions there is more than what meets the eye. The plan of integrating the erstwhile rebel fighters, who have been confined to UN-monitored camps, into the Army was always going to be a contentious, torturous and a long-drawn out process. It has been less than a year since the Maoist came to power and a duel with the Army over the process at this time was neither profitable for the country nor the Maoist.

By trying to bring in the huge number of former rebels into the Army in haste, the Maoist probably wanted to gain complete control over the military in Nepal. History has enough instances of rebels forming government through democratic means but later churning out dictatorial regimes.

Now, anger against the Government has been running high in Nepal, where much of the public blames the Maoists for power outages that can last over 16 hours a day, fuel shortages that have created endless lines at gas stations, and rising prices of food and other household staples. Thus, by resigning, Prachanda might be hoping to replenish his earlier charisma as a revoltuioanry fighter, which so far is indeed intact among the rural villagers.

Considering the long border, close cultural and economic ties and the looming shadow of Beijing, it is naive to expect New Delhi to be a benchwarmer amidst the unfolding events. It is no secret that sections of the political class in Kathmandu tend to blame New Delhi for its woes and want closer ties with Beijing to counter the Indian influence in the region. As such, New Delhi needs to express its concerns and maintain its support for democracy and effective governance, while trying to reassure the people and the Neplaese establishment that it has no interest in meddling in the internal affairs of any neighbouring country.

In fashioning its regional policy, India will always encounter the “big-brother syndrome” issue among its smaller neighbours. But, such hurdles should not discourage New Delhi from striving for an effectively democratic South Asia. --INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)