By Kanak Mani Dixit
Kanak Mani Dixit (File photo)
Due to India’s influence in the world community, a situation has emerged where other countries, too, will see the King’s (Feb 1) move the way India sees it.
Had India supported the royal move, the international reaction would perhaps have not been so negative, but India that has been reiterating the mantra of “constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy” did not abandon it even after February 1. New Delhi’s ‘double standard’ vis a vis Nepal is often a topic of discussion in Kathmandu, but based on this viewpoint (constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy) that has been made public, a new opportunity has been found to properly bind New Delhi in the times to come.
Some might have expected the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP- India’s main opposition) to welcome the Royal move. This might have been easy to speculate as Nepal’s Royal Palace has been, for the past few years, encouraging political Hinduism in India. But what a BJP team that visited Nepal last week said and the reply of BJP leader Lal Krishna Advani to a letter sent by some office-bearers in Nepal make it clear that even this party that embraces ‘Hinduism’ will not extend any significant support to the Royal move.
Also because of Congress (I) president Sonia Gandhi’s ideological disagreement with the political aspect of the Royal move and because of the Marxist communists who are partners in the coalition government led by Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh, India was forced to give a strong critical reaction on the very first day. Those in the know say that India gave an unambiguous reaction also because of Indian Foreign Secretary (who was ambassador to Nepal a year back) Shyam Saran’s precise comprehension of Nepal’s ground realities. Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran and other Indian policymakers who believe that political stability in Nepal is indispensable for socio-economic development in India’s Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh states might have criticized the Royal Proclamation due to this very Indian interest.
The claim that the new establishment in Kathmandu has made through different ministers- that it is able to move ahead alone if it does not receive international, especially India’s, support- cannot be trusted. As the development budget of Nepal, which runs more than 80% of its development programmes through foreign loans and grants, and almost all expenses required to fight the Maoists come from the above three countries, especially India, Finance Minister Madhukar Rana’s statement — that Nepal is able to meet its development and security expenditures by utilizing its own resources — is at least meaningless for the time being.
His Majesty King Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev. (File photo)
According to the information received, Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran has been discussing Nepal policies with the Chinese ambassador to India in New Delhi. This seems to be true as such reports keep on coming from New Delhi while there has been no refutation from Beijing. The opinion that the appointment of septuagenarian politician Kirtinidhi Bista, who is said to be on very good terms with China, as one of the vice-chairmen of the Council of Ministers, was a display of the ‘China card’ seems to be two-decades old. As long as there are no (political) upheavals in Nepal’s territory that lies south of the Himalayas and China’s autonomous region Tibet, there doesn’t seem any possibility of China showing any unnecessary concern in the geo-political affairs of South Asia that would annoy India. On the other hand, at a time when the bilateral economic ties between China and India are strengthening and becoming prominent, it seems that China, too, like the western countries, will allow India to take a lead as far as Nepal is considered.
Mainly due to India’s influence on Nepal, its concern over Nepal’s security situation, and influence on the world community in the context of Nepal, a situation has been created wherein other countries would see the King’s move the way India sees it. The sudden increase in India’s influence over Nepal, in the context of the country’s sovereignty, is a serious aspect created by the Royal move.
The immediate thing
India’s Nepal policies seem much like that of US’ and Britain’s Nepal policies. Increase of foreign influence on Nepali affairs in this way is definitely not a good thing. These three countries do realize that military aid suspension to Nepal will make things easier for the Maoist rebels. But if the aid were given continuity, it would mean supporting the anti-democratic move. In such a situation, the immediate policy of these countries appears to be mounting pressure for the release of the political detainees and restoration of the suspended civil rights.
Indian ambassador Shiv Sharan Mukherjee says, “Rest assured, India’s reaction is clear and transparent. Let there be no ambiguity. Our wish is constitutional monarchy and restoration of the multiparty system. And there are no hidden policies or activities apart from this public stand of ours.”
The international community, through statements and action, extended an unexpected cooperation for democracy in Nepal this time around. There might be a variety of reasons for this, for example, the diplomatic missions and donor agencies were engaged in programmes of development, peace restoration, and conflict resolution without politics, or they, too, assisted in neglecting and weakening the importance of the political sector for a considerable time. It might be that the embassies and the donor agencies realized the importance of democracy and its carriers- the political parties- only recently. Though such ideological change is welcome, the resolution of the country’s political problem should be through the Nepali mind and home grown agitation, not through the direction and assistance of foreign countries.
And let’s hope the neighbouring countries, friendly countries and donor countries do not hold the hands of the Nepali people and escort them towards the restoration of democracy. Because only a half democracy will be received through that way.