Is India changing her stance? Perhaps yes

December 31, 2003
5 MIN READ
A
A+
A-

Kathmandu: Neighboring India is presumably not happy with UML leader Madhav Nepal’s “much publicized” secret trip to Lucknow.

That India is not at all happy with Mr. Nepal’s (mis)adventure got reflected some days ago when India’s Ambassador to Nepal, Shyam Saran, appealed the Nepali leaders not to misuse the Indian territory for such meetings with the Maoists leaders.

That India is really unhappy with Madhav Nepal, politically speaking, came to light when India’s foreign minister talking to Nepal television, Monday, said that his trip to Lucknow has definitely in his own words “embarrassed” India.

Foreign Minister Yaswant Sinha did hint that Madhav Nepal in doing so had done tremendous damage to India. However, he hastened to add that such events could take place because of the “open border” system in between Nepal and India.

The frank admission by two Indian authorities assumes great significance for two reasons.

Ambassador Shyam Saran expressed his anger over Nepal’s clandestine trip to India around time when the US Assistant Secretary of State, Ms. Christina B. Rocca, was about to land in the Nepalese capital.

The same India concern was expressed nonelessthan Indian Foreign Minister, Yashwant Sinha, after Christina Rocca completed her trip to Nepal.

However, what is common in the two statements is that both do talk about Madhav Nepal and his trip to Lucknow and both more or less arrive at a conclusion that Madhav Nepal in doing so did what was not expected of him politically. What is more common in them is that both have made their revelations around time of Rocca’s Nepal visit. But then yet both dismiss the event pushing the open border system in between the two countries.

Better late than never, India apparently at the highest level now has begun to think over Nepali insurgency.

” I am now convinced that India will extend her support in this regard”, is what Rocca said to a select group of journalists recently in Kathmandu. This she said to the Nepali press upon her exclusive meetings with India’s Ambassador while being in Nepal.

Not surprising therefore that India’s foreign minister now says that “if the Nepali authorities pass on information to our government, we will even catch and repatriate the Maoists”.

Should this mean that the Maoists in India, if at all they were there, now remain prone to Indian wrath? That they are becomes amply clear from Minister Sinha’s expression when he says that “helping Maoists means encouraging the MCC and PWG”.

If it is so then the Nepali Maoists must devise yet another scheme to remain safe. Certainly, one would be to resume the talks. If they do so, will definitely send a sort of relief to the Nepali population and others as well. Nepali population will pleasingly embrace their own revolutionary brethren if they are back in their own homeland and contribute to the process of nation-building.

Be that as it may, Nepali analysts beg to differ politely with minister Sinha’s some comments made pertaining to Nepal-India bilateral ties.

At one point he does admit that there have been some “issues” in between the two countries but not “differences” as such. The issues, as per minister Sinha could well be sorted out through “negotiations”.

Analysts say that when there are issues then it should mean that the issues in question must have arisen out of differences. Logically speaking, if there is the absence of differences, there would not be issues to debate or to discuss or even to argue.

Analysts point out that Nepal “differs” clearly with India on so many counts; namely, the Mahakali issue; the 1950 issue; the border encroachment issue; the dam construction issue; the Kalapani issue; on extraditing the third country nationals issue and more or less Nepal differs on India “prescription” on how Nepal should move politically.

These were some of the issues which have culminated into sharp differences which albeit demand debate, discussions and enough arguments and then finally warrant a mutually beneficial “negotiations”.

However, what could not be contradicted with the ministers assertion that negotiations were ultimately needed to sort out the “issues” wherein we “differ” politically.

When issues crop up means that certain differences must have come up. To sort out the differences, one has to take the help of negotiations.

Analysts opine that Nepal and India must now admit that we have some differences on some counts which demanded “negotiations” as suggested by Minister Yaswant Sinha.

Be that as it may, analyzing minister Sinha’s television talk what could be concluded is that India is slowly but steadily changing her stance on so many counts including those on the Nepali insurgency.

What if India mediates in between the government and the rebels?

Analysts in this paper prefer not to dismiss the idea outrightly. This is what had apparently been conveyed to Nepal by India’s former foreign secretary Kawan Sibbal while making a lecture he made long time back in Paris at some International studies center, if one were to recall.