Kathmandu: Indications are that Nepal’s friendly neighbor, India, is not happy with the events that have started unfolding in this beleaguered Kingdom in the recent days and weeks.
To begin with, our southern neighbor is not apparently happy with the suddenly announced ceasefire in between the Maoists and the government. Or else what could have best prompted The Times of India, a broadsheet Indian daily widely considered to be excessively close to the government of India, to write editorial titled “Royal Rebels” in one of its issues printed some thirteen days back.
As the title of the editorial itself speaks so many things at one stretch, most importantly it does speak that the Indian establishment is not at all happy with the sudden announcement of the ceasefire for obvious and understandable political reasons.
As if the editorial was not sufficient to exhibit its utter displeasure on the unfolding Nepal events, the Indian Prime Minister chose to hit Nepal very hard by alleging that “Pakistan had been expanding its campaign ( implied terrorism) in Nepal.
Though no official denials or rebuttals have come to the fore from Nepal’s foreign ministry but then yet Prime Minister Bajpayee’s blunt remarks made against Nepal has aroused much concern among the informed citizenry who wish to term it as a “regular phenomenon” and appeal the lay men to take it lightly.
In saying so, prime minister Bajpayee implies that Nepal’s Maoists too had been posing threats to India’s security at the behest of Pakistsn.
(To recall, Pakistan Ambassador in Kathmandu was quick enough to dismiss the claims made by Bajpayee and has refuted fresh Indian allegations in very strong words.)
This means that India if on the one hand is not happy with the Maoists-Government deal for a ceasefire then she is equally susceptible of the Maoists being used by Pakistan tom pose a threat to her security concerns.
Indian allegation have had two fold benefits to Nepal politically speaking.
While this allegation will bring the Maoists and the government more closer than ever, it would also distance the Maoists with India.
Indications to this effect have already come to the fore from the write ups of the two top hats of the Maoists insurgency, Prachanda and Babu Ram Bhattarai.
While Comrade Prachanda says that such references might have appeared in the foreign media because they fear that their “expansionist” policies will take a back seat if Nepal restored peace and stability in the country. Apparently, in communist vocabulary, the term expansionist is used to denote India for unknown reasons.
Like wise, Dr. Bhattarai laments in one of his freshly printed articles wherein he says that why some sectors wish to cage them either in the Narayan Hiti camp or the Delhi camp. He questions as to why those who prefer to defame their insurgency do not see their presence in the huts, in the villages, and in the hearts of the poverty stricken people of the country. According to him, the insurgency is popular in the huts and villages.
A quick look at these two separate statements coming as it does from the two top hats of the insurgency which has appeared after the editorial Royal Rebels and much later after Bajpayee’s fresh allegations against Nepal becomes food for thought for the Nepali intellectuals.
Does all this mean that India exhibited its displeasure simply because its role was ignored? Or is it that the present ceasefire in any way goes against the interest of neighboring India? Or is it that Nepal wished the prolongation of the hostilities in between the State and the Maoists in Nepal?
But then India too has welcomed this new development.
Be that as it may, it is time that Comrade Prachanda and Dr. Bhattarai double their efforts in restoring peace and stability in their own motherland and foil the efforts of those who apparently wish to see a weaker Nepal for unexplainable reasons.