To Be Or Not To Be...

For the past week there have been statements, comments and speculation onIndia's policy towards Nepal - more specifically the present regime - which havenot always been illuminating. After his meetings with ('having received inaudience', as Kathmandu put it) external affairs minister Natwar Singh and PrimeMinister Manmohan Singh, on April 23 at the sidelines of the BandungAsian-African Summit at Jakarta, King Gyanendra revealed that India had agreedto resume arms supplies to Nepal. The Indian Prime Minister's guarded comment,that the issue would be seen in the 'proper perspective', was in keeping withthe presumed confidentiality of his discussion, but became inadequate in view ofKing Gyanendra's bald declaration. Since then events have moved rapidly.

Initial assessments, in the absence of any clear statement of position by India,were that Delhi had agreed to resume arms supplies, or at least unspecifiedquantities of those in the pipeline, in return for assurances that the regimewould permit Nepal to return to the path of democracy. The alleged front-loadingof the understanding caused unqualified public dismay in India as it becameuncertain whether the king's regime would, indeed, pursue any road map towardsdemocracy.

As seen from Kathmandu, in an influential weekly: "As the defence andforeign policy establishments in New Delhi locked horns, there was confusionabout who was really directing policy towards Nepal. King Gyanendra came out ofthis looking like he had run circles around the Indians and exposed their rift.In addition, the Indian about turn on arms blew a sizeable hole in theUS-UK-India alliance on Nepal". Within days of the Jakarta meeting, aformer Prime Minister, Sher Bahadur Deuba, was arrested in the early hours ofApril 27, with a show of force clearly intended to demonstrate the awesomeauthority of the state. Also arrested were other senior politicians andactivists. It cannot escape notice that those arrested under the orders of theRoyal Corruption Control Commission or other devices were actively engaged intrying to bring about a long-overdue understanding among political parties todeal with the current political situation.

These arrests have elicited welcome statements from the Indian government,providing some measure of clarity. The foreign office spokesman expressedconcern at the widespread arrests as "contrary to the assurances conveyedto us", adding that "these developments would further complicateefforts for a reconciliation between political parties and the constitutionalmonarchy in Nepal". While expressing his reservations about the arrests,the minister for external affairs clarified in Parliament that the king hadpromised to release prisoners, lift censorship, permit telecast of Indianchannels and gradually go in for elections. He just needed time.

Approaching the weekend, the Emergency in Nepal stands terminated. There isconsiderable discussion and comment on the 'lifting' of the Emergency, andperhaps an air of satisfaction that this has been due to pressures exerted byIndia and others. This is, at best, only partially true because,constitutionally, the Emergency could not go beyond three months unless theNepali administration chose to be publicly defiant of internal and internationalopinion and engage in convoluted constitutional procedures, now more awkward inthe absence of a Parliament.

It was thus 'expiry' rather than 'lifting' of the Emergency, for which unduecredit is being both given and taken. Kathmandu's intent is not reflected inwhat could turn out to be only a cosmetic measure, while harsh and restrictivesteps are taken by other means. Only the coming weeks can show if there is anyhonest desire for dialogue and restoration of the suppressed political processesand freedom of expression. Any celebration of the ending of the Emergency ispresently premature.

The firmness of purpose and clarity of vision that India has displayed in recenttimes in the pursuit of her national goals and interests has the appearance ofbeing less in evidence with regard to Nepal. Dealing with neighbours is alwaysfraught with peril. This becomes vastly more so when there are numerous closeassociations at many levels of society and layers of almost catechistic fervourand conviction. At a time of grave national crisis in Nepal, it is importantthat India's understanding and vision remain unclouded.

It is a measure of the closeness and goodwill that has traditionally existedbetween the Indian Army and the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) that their Chiefs arehonorary chiefs of the other army on a reciprocal basis. However, given reportsof the aerial bombings which could be killing innocent civilians, as well asother indiscriminate measures in Nepal, one must wonder if the Chief of theIndian Army would currently wish to be so 'honoured'.

A recent chief of the RNA was prone to describing Nepal's relations withIndia and China as being in the ratio of 60:40. One must also wonder how theroyal coup of February 1, carried out obviously with the collaboration of theRNA, came as a complete surprise to India. Further, the argument that theabsence of material assistance from India would bring other players intocritical prominence is one assiduously fostered by Nepal over the years. In thepast, Nepal has cultivated China, and even Pakistan, to promote this illusion inIndia. But the facts of life and geography point in quite a different direction.As the Minister of external affairs said in Parliament, India has all theleverages in her unique relationship with Nepal; only, these have not been usedso far.

Whatever the social and economic causes of the Maobaadi (Maoist) movementin Nepal, there cannot be much disagreement with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh'sobservation: "There is no place for violence and extremism of any kind in ademocratic, rule-based society". But the emphasis here has to be as much on'violence and extremism' as on a 'democratic, rule-based society'. And thisaspect of India's policy towards the current regime in Nepal seems often to bemissing in the debate over arms supplies.

Over the past several years, India has remained wholly committed to assistingNepal in combating the Maoist insurgency. The question must arise whether it cancontinue to do so if the authority of the state itself is taken away from thepeople of Nepal, and where state sponsored brown-shirt equivalents seem no lessadept at terrifying and terrorizing than the Maoists. It is understood by allthat there is no military solution to the problem and, at the end of the tunnel,light can only come through negotiations. This can be credible, indeed possible,only through the agency of the representatives of the people. We must heed themuted voice of Nepali civil society; as one commentator expressed it,"Nearly two months after the royal take-over of 1st February, it becomesquite clear that the regime change conducted by King Gyanendra was an attempt tobring back authoritarian rule on the pretext of tackling the Maoistrebellion".

It is true that, over the decades, India's relations with Nepal have beenconsiderably influenced by the interaction and the inter-connectivity of feudaland political elites and military connections. At the same time, there is inNepal, as indeed among our other neighbours, an undercurrent of respect forIndia and the traditions it is supposed to stand for, a strength India scarcelyrecognizes. With regard to Nepal, it lies with India to show the way to theinternational community. If it falters or sends conflicting signals, it would bean encouragement to others to indulge in their little games as well. It wouldalienate and dishearten all those in Nepal who do not want regression. India'sself-interest must lie in promoting the interests of the beleaguered people ofNepal. And these interests cannot be addressed if the state is taken away fromthem. Nor should India quite forget the decades when 'anti-Indianism' wasactively equated with Nepali nationalism at a time when the democratic processwas buried in Nepal.

India cannot afford a Hamlet-like to-be-or-not-to-be attitude. Indeed, thedebate should be enlarged beyond the scope of only arms supplies from India. Itis important to stay the course. Even in an age when compromises and makingdeals in international affairs has primacy over principles, it must be clearthat India's actions at least serve the country's national interests, whichhappen, here, to coincide with those of the people of Nepal.

Deb Mukharji is Former Indian Ambassador to Nepal, Bangladesh. Courtesy, the SouthAsia Intelligence Review of the South Asia Terrorism Portal