Kathmandu: Nepal’s traditional friend, India, better late than never admitted that the Nepali rebels do reside in India. However, in no way, explained India’s Ambassador to Nepal, His Excellency Shyam Saran that this should mean that India had been providing shelter to the Maoists in her territory.
Ambassador Shyan Saran’s candid explanation has come close on the heels of Madhav Nepal’s much publicized Lucknow trip to see Maoists leaders for which he was scathingly criticized by a section of the Nepali academia and the media as well.
In effect, the Indian embassy had made a sort of clarification wherein the diplomatic mission expressed its ignorance over Madhav Nepal’s Lucknow trip.
Now it is the Indian Ambassador himself who has politely appealed the Nepali leaders not to make such clandestine trip to India to meet the Maoists leaders.
” We do not approve of Indian territory being used for such clandestine meetings and we would urge that all concerned should refrain from such activities in future”, said Ambassador Shyan Sharan talking to a select group of media people the other day.
Analysing Ambassador Saran’s quick explanation what comes to the fore is that Madhav Nepal, knowingly or unknowingly, did much damage to India’s declared neutral credentials by making a “secret” trip to Lucknow.
“India now wishes to repair the damage done by the UML leader”, said one political scientist who is associated with the TU’s political science department.
To recall, Congress president Koirala is reported to have met the Maoists leaders while being in India to the extent that one time he dashed to Delhi straight from Hong Kong to see the Maoists leader. Yet another congress stalwart, Chakra Prasad Bastola reportedly meets very often the rebel leaders in India.
Madhav Nepal and a host of other communist leaders some two years ago met the top-hats of the insurgency in Siliguri, India. And this time Madhav Nepal went straight to Lucknow and met the members of the high command of the insurgency.
Ambassador Saran’s clarification has some political significance as well. The timing of the release of this explanation also apparently has some meaning.
His statement has come a couple of hours before the US Assistant Secretary of State, Ms. Christina Rocca, landed in Kathmandu for a four day visit to this Himalayan Kingdom.
However, Ambassador Saran is talking sense when he summarily disagrees to the general Nepali allegation that his country has provided shelter to the Nepali rebels. “Speculation about India’s intentions is based on a complete ignorance about ground realities”, says Ambassador Saran.
That Indian intention is clear vis-à-vis the Maoists becomes clear when one reads the Ambassador’s clarification which says that “we have time and again said the Maoists insurgency represents as much a threat to India’s security as to Nepal’s and that we are committed to cooperating closely with Nepal in meeting this challenge”.
Should this mean that India will now look upon the Nepali rebels in a different manner?
Ambassador Saran, however, implies that his establishment remains ignorant of the whereabouts of the Maoists leaders residing in India.
Summing up, what could now be concluded is that India did not pleasingly took Madhav Nepal’s secret visit to Lucknow. Secondly, India did admit, though hesitatingly, that Maoists rebels might have taken shelter in Indian territory. Thirdly, India has committed herself to cooperate Nepal in this regard. Fourthly, India if convinced by the Nepali authorities might extend her good-offices in mediating between the two warring rivals so that a permanent solution could be arrived at.
Analysts opine that annoying India at this juncture would do more damage than good to the prospects of talks in between the government and the Maoists. “Let’s seek Indian mediation and arrive at a solution to this overly stretched imbroglio”, maintain analysts.