Kathmandu: Now the mood is different.
Nepal’s Prime Minister who had left Delhi as if he were close to a lame-duck has returned Kathmandu as a wild cat to the utter dismay of matured political analysts leaving them all to guess as to what could have changed the stamina and the energy of Nepal’s weakest ever prime minister?
The reason is clear and enlightening.
Deuba during his trip to Delhi apparently has become able to impart a sense of terror and threat in the minds of the Indian leaders that Maoists who have been posing a challenge to Nepal could well one fine morning be a source of security tension to the country who apparently has provided them with a shelter.
The Indian leaders got Deuba’s points clearly and have assured Deuba that they too have come to the same conclusion and that the Nepali Maoists will henceforth be treated as “shared threat” to both the countries.
In the process, India has provided Nepal with more than adequate lethal weapons to counter the threats posed to it by the insurgents.
Interestingly, the Indian authorities nabbed a few of the hard core Maoists leaders in Patna and elsewhere while Nepal’s prime minister was in India apparently guided by a desire to impress upon Nepal that India was serious over Nepali concerns.
What factors could have changed the Indian minds a propos the Nepali Maoists?
Interpretations might vary from brains to brains.
Matured political analysts see varied reasons that could have forced India to change her stance regarding the Maoists.
Firstly, Indian authorities belatedly came to the conclusion that the Nepali Maoists have had already developed a sort of linkages with similar insurgent groups operating in India through a corridor that stretched from Nepal’s Terai to as far as Andhra Pradesh in India.
Secondly, the Indian authorities closed their eyes until the Nepali Maoists managed a sort of private linkages with various political lobbies in Delhi and that when the insurgents began ventilating anti-Indian stances; the leadership in Delhi got irritated.
Thirdly, Delhi did not mind Maoists presence in Indian territories until they refrained from reiterating those first four demands of the total forty which they submitted to the Nepali establishment in 1996 for its execution. The first four demands are all aimed against India and touch upon the abrogation of all the unequal treaties with India. However, the Maoists of late had begun to hit India under one pretext or the other to the utter chagrin of the Indian establishment.
Fourthly, it might have come for the Indian authorities as a bolt from the blue when the Maoists only recently dubbed India as an “expansionist” nation. This term apparently annoyed India to the extent that she decided to provide its helping hand to Nepal in order to wipe out an enemy that has dared to give her a bad name.
Fifthly, the increasing American efforts at convincing the Indian leadership too apparently has worked this time. More so, American Ambassador James F. Moriarty’s fresh Delhi trip too appears to have added to Indian haste in arriving at a conclusion that Nepali Maoists too amounted to a security threat to India.
Sixthly, the powers-that-be in Delhi presumably calculated that a weak monarchy facing constant criticisms from all quarters in Kathmandu was neither in the interest of India nor to the region’s political balance and hence the Indian authorities expressed their desire to crush the Maoists in order both to tame the Maoists and concurrently enhance the sagging morale of the Nepal’s royal institution.
This way the leaders in Delhi have presumably won the hearts of King Gyanendra. That India would wish the Nepali monarchy to thrive in this Himalayan Kingdom becomes evidently clear from Indian declaration that Delhi would wish Nepal continues with multi-party democracy under a constitutional monarchy. This apparently sends messages to all those political brains who prefer the abolition of a monarchical system from this country. The message from India is loud and clear that India favored continuation of Kingship in Nepal. This could be a message to Koirala and his associates plus the Maoists as well who of late have been criticizing the monarchy under one pretext or the other.
Add to this, the US position too is clear on Nepali monarchy. Ambassador Moriarty has time and again reiterated that the US too would maintain a policy wherein multi-party system under constitutional monarchy remains intact in any future negotiations with the Maoists or whosoever.
The King now by mere coincidence or by default or even by a calculated plan has suddenly become powerful. Analysts recognize this sudden change to have gone in favor of the monarchy and by the same token brought the US and India closer at least on how to treat with the Maoists.
But the million dollar question remains: What is the reason behind Indian magnanimity and that too so suddenly?
Deuba knows and he should explain it better at “what price” India was encouraged to open its heart?
Undoubtedly, analysts opine, Nepal must have paid a very heavy price for these superficial gains.
How the Maoists react to India’s fresh political overtures will have determined the future course of their action against a “determined establishment” and vice versa.