Koirala lets Maoists form government

Ending the month-long political stalemate and uncertainty, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala invited the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Chairman Prachanda, also the leader of the single largest party in the Constituent Assembly (CA), to form a new government. But Koirala urged the Maoist chief to form the new government in accordance with the Interim Constitution. The Maoists applauded Koirala’s step and welcomed his move for creating a favourable political atmosphere.

Apparently, the three main parties- Maoists, Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-Unified Marxist Leninist (UML)—evolved political consensus and found a way out of a problem which has been dogging the formation of the new government. However, issues like amendment to the Interim Constitution, nomination of 26 CA members and appointment of ‘ceremonial President’ remain a matter of serious concern. Senior NC, UML and Madhesi Janaandhikar Forum (MJF) leaders had earlier agreed for a common stand on future power sharing but came out with pre-conditions at the negotiating table. The amendment proposal, which allows the removal of a government through a simple majority in the CA, is being strongly opposed by the Maoists. Eventually, even if they agree to the amendment, it is unlikely that they would give up both the posts of PM and President to other parties.

Source: ORF, May 27, 2008

Maoists to adopt liberal economic policy

The CPN-Maoists are clear about their economic agenda: they want an economic miracle in Nepal within 10 years. To achieve this objective, they have promised to adopt a liberal economic policy to boost the country’s economic development and revive the dormant industrial sector. Adopting a pragmatic approach, they have invited private and foreign investment in the country's economic development. They called upon the business community to join hands with the new government in creating a new Nepal and make investments in the country without any fear. They would be focusing on strengthening domestic industries and adopt policies aimed to boost production by promoting domestic resources available in the country.

This approach might lessen the fears of the Nepali business community which had been wary of the Maoists victory in the elections. The general fear was that a Maoist-led government might try to nationalise the private sector. The Maoist leaders were quick to dispel such notions in a series of meetings they had with the business community. The Maoists denied any such move. The Maoists, for the time being, are more concerned about fulfilling the people’s mandate and work towards creating a new Nepal which they had promised to the people during the elections. They are acutely aware of the immense challenges meeting such expectations would require. They are actively seeking the support of the private sector and foreign investors. At this critical juncture, their objective is to promote investments by attracting private investors and achieve an inclusive economic progress.

Source: South Asia Weekly, May 18, 2008

Prachanda on Indo-Nepal relations

Chairman of Nepal's Maoist party Prachanda speaks on the changes that will be brought about in Nepal after his party’s historical victory and its implication on Nepal’s relations with India. In an exclusive interview with Karan Thapar in Devil's Advocate programme in CNN-IBN, Prachanda speaks about the impact of Maoist victory on Maoists in India.

Karan Thapar: Mr Prachanda, because the Maoists are a relatively unknown entity, there are many people in India who are apprehensive about your coming to power. Can you understand their concern?
Prachanda: Yes, I think so because during the emergency, the kind of image and the propaganda that was there in the country was different. But we were always committed to multi-party competition and peace at that time. However, people did not know about our new political developments then.
Karan Thapar: So you are a prisoner of an image?
Prachanda: No not exactly.
Karan Thapar: But a little. People have a misunderstanding about your attitude.
Prachanda: That could be called a communication gap or something like that. Slowly and gradually, people understand our commitment to multi-party, peace and other things.
Karan Thapar: What sort of relations will you be looking at with India?
Prachanda: A new relation on a new basis. The new base has been laid down with the understanding from Delhi. A new unity with Delhi is already in process.
Karan Thapar: When you say a new relationship, do you mean a better relationship?
Prachanda: Exactly, a new relation means better relations, understanding and cooperation.
Karan Thapar: And closer to New Delhi?
Prachanda: Exactly. Yes, we want to come closer to New Delhi on the basis of new relations.
Karan Thapar: How does this equate to what you keep saying that you want equidistance from Delhi and from Beijing? To people in India this sounds as if you are demoting the relationship with India to the level of relationship with China.
Prachanda: But I always said that there is a special relationship with India, geographical and cultural, and therefore we should have a special relationship with New Delhi. No one can ignore this historical, geographical and cultural fact. What I am saying is that we will not side up with one country against the other. We will maintain equidistance in political sense and not in terms of cooperation and other things.
Karan Thapar: The culture, history, and geographical relationship that Nepal has with India, will remain intact?
Prachanda: Yes, it will remain. It is a historical fact and we will have to strengthen this relationship.
Karan Thapar: Let me discuss some problems that may arise. You said that you want to abrogate the 1950 Indo-Nepal treaty and you want to renegotiate it. What are the aspects of the treaty that you don’t like?
Prachanda: Our people have put forward this concern that they feel that the treaty lacks inequality and that it is not beneficial for Nepal. We thus want to review all the points of the 1950 treaty. And we want to revise it according to new necessity.
Karan Thapar: The 1950 treaty guarantees the open border with Nepal and it also says that people of Nepal have national citizen status in India. Do you want to revise it and rework that?
Prachanda: Not exactly right now. There are other provisions that we want to discuss in detail.
Karan Thapar: So you want to retain the open border and you want to retain national citizen status of people, but there are other provisions?
Prachanda: There are others which I don’t want to discuss right now in detail.
Karan Thapar: Is one of them the defence purchase provision which requires Nepal to consult Delhi and only then acquire arms. Is that one?
Prachanda: That also should be reviewed and should be made according to the necessity of the 21st century.
Karan Thapar: Let me tell you what your colleague, Babu Ram Bhattarai told Nepal Telegraph on May 10. He said it was only because of the open border that Nepal could not achieve economic prosperity. Do you agree with him?
Prachanda: In the transitional phase, right now with the processes going on, it is not correct.
Karan Thapar: So this view is not correct?
Prachanda: Right now it is not correct.
Karan Thapar: He expressed this roughly just a week ago.
Prachanda: I will have to discuss with him. I do not know in what context he said it.
Karan Thapar: One of the problems in renegotiating the treaty is that India may use the opportunity to look for better terms. Does that work for you? You want better terms for Nepal. India may want better terms for itself.
Prachanda: It is beneficial for both sides to review the treaty and upgrade it according to the new necessity. When Rana resigned, a lot of changes have come in Nepal and there has been a lot of change in India. Thus the 1950 treaty should be upgraded according to the new necessity.
Karan Thapar: You also said that you want to review all the other treaties to see what revisions or further enhancements can be made. Is that a decision to revoke the other treaties and renegotiate them or simply the desire to review them?
Prachanda: Yes, I want to have a general review on all the treaties. But specifically I want to review the 1950 treaty.
Karan Thapar: The 1950 treaty, you want to change, but others you want to just review generally?
Prachanda: Yes, we want changes in the 1950 treaty, others may be okay, or may be revised, but we want to generally review them.
Karan Thapar: People in India after they hear you, will say that Mr Prachanda on one hand wants a new and a better, closer and a stronger relationship, on the other hand, he wants to revoke the 1950 treaty, review all other treaties and he wants equidistance from China and India. Aren’t these two things contradictory?
Prachanda: It is not contradictory. According to me it will help in better relations, will strengthen relations, and have close cooperation with each other. By review, we mean, both sides will be there, and we will review the historical treaty to upgrade it and revise it according to the new necessity.
Karan Thapar: You also say that India can also look for new advantages and gain?
Prachanda: Yes exactly.
Karan Thapar: However, the problem is that when both countries start reviewing things, and when you start revoking treaties and you start changing relations that have been there for 50 years, you can end up creating problems and damaging Indo-Nepal relations. Does that not worry you?
Prachanda: No, that will not happen. When your intention is to strengthen relations for betterment, how can it then sabotage relations or even destroy them.
Previously, India vouched for a two-pillar theory and that monarchy should be there in Nepal. However, now that there will be no monarchy and many political changes will take place, then there has to be a change.
Karan Thapar: So you want to re-negotiate the relationship.
Prachanda: Yes.
Karan Thapar: So you are saying to the Indian people and government that I don’t want to renegotiate the relationship to destroy it.
Prachanda: Yes, and we want to strengthen relations by re-negotiating.
Karan Thapar: And you are saying that India should be looking to renegotiate also to look at advantages for itself.
Prachanda: Yes.
Karan Thapar: You are happy with that?
Karan Thapar: The fact that nearly 30,000 Nepali Gorkha soldiers are employed by the Indian Army. The Army has seven Gorkha regiments comprising 43 battalions. This is seen in India as an unbreakable link that binds Nepal with India. You want to stop this, why?
Prachanda: Yes, we want to discuss this issue. We don’t want to stop it right now. We want to review the whole history of the development and the implication on both countries. What kind of relation is created through this institution is what we want to review. We want to review and discuss it.
Karan Thapar: You said a very important thing. At this stage you don’t want to stop the Gorkha recruitment by the Indian Army. You want to review it and discuss it. At the moment you are not seeking to stop recruitment?
Prachanda: Yes.
Karan Thapar: Why do you want to review it? What is there to discuss?
Prachanda: I think this will be debated in our constituent Assembly. It is an important topic. Now we are about to draft a new constitution and that will guide us for Nepal’s vital interest.
Karan Thapar: In your eyes, do you see Nepali Gorkhas who get employed by Indian Army or the British army as mercenaries. Is that why you don’t like it because it is mercenary behaviour?
Prachanda: These are historical questions. We will have to review it in that perspective.
Karan Thapar: Today, tens of thousands of jobs are guaranteed by Indian Army and another 5,000 by the British army and other than that there are almost lakh of people who get pensions. You want to eradicate poverty and unemployment. Then why touch this. This is a source of employment. Why affect it?
Prachanda: Here in Nepal there was feudal autocracy as a political system. Now that we are changing that into a democratic system, and we are looking at rapid economic development so that our youth don’t have to look for employment in other countries. We want to change the political and economic scenario.
Karan Thapar: There is no danger that within a month or two you would stop recruitment?
Prachanda: No. It is also because we are right now in a transitional phase.
Karan Thapar: So what ever happens will happen gradually and slowly after debate and discussion.
Prachanda: Yes.
Karan Thapar: In 1996, when you drew your 40-point programme, you called for a ban on Hindi films. Is that also a part of your agenda still?
Prachanda: Right now the situation has changed as we participated in elections and we will lead the peace process and we will draft a new constitution. We are not going to put this question forward in that way.
Karan Thapar: So right now, there is no likelihood of ban on Hindi films?
Prachanda: Yes, you are right. Right now it is not possible because we have so many other compromises and consensus with so many political parties. We have to go forward in a particular way.
Karan Thapar: So you have no problem if Shah Rukh Khan’s film or Amitabh Bachchan’s films come to Nepal?
Prachanda: They are coming to Nepal and we have no ban right now.
Karan Thapar: And you have no problem with Manisha Koirala acting in Hindi films?
Prachanda: No, not at all.
Karan Thapar: Will you be looking to India for support and help in removing you from the terror list that the US maintains.
Prachanda: After the elections, I had a direct contact with USA, and I had a serious discussion with the Ambassador of US and I think that India has already helped us with the elections and constituent assembly. So, this way they have already helped us.
Karan Thapar: Can they help further. Can India speak to US President George Bush and ask him to stop treating the Maoists in Nepal as terrorists?
Prachanda: We may expect this, but we can't request India to do so.
Karan Thapar: Why can’t you request them?
Prachanda: I think we have direct access with the US.
Karan Thapar: But you would like India to do it?
Prachanda: We expect it and hope that India can create conducive atmosphere.
Karan Thapar: So you expect it and hope India listens to this interview and takes a hint.
Prachanda: Yes, exactly.
Karan Thapar: What will you think will be the impact on Indian Maoists by your coming to power in Nepal?
Prachanda: I think a strong message has already gone. After the elections, there was a wave in favour of our policy. After the elections, a Maoist has sent a letter to me congratulating me for this historical victory in elections. I think there will be a serious discussion and debate within the Maoist circles in India and we have already given a message to not only Maoists in India, but to all over the world.
Karan Thapar: Looking at your own experience in Nepal during the last two years and six months in particular, would you advice the Indian Maoists to give up the peoples war, to join mainstream, to use the ballot rather than the bullet as a way of acquiring power?
Prachanda: I think that I cannot directly address them, but our behaviour and our policy and our practices give out the message of the power of ballot.
Karan Thapar: One of the top Maoist leaders in India, Azad in an interview to The Hindu has said that the Nepali Maoists are unlikely to succeed and that the Nepali Maoists will soon realise that they have made a mistake.
Prachanda: Right now, the same person Azad has sent a letter congratulating me and that he thinks it is a very serious victory for the Maoists. I think it is before and after the elections, that he has evaluated it in a different way.
Karan Thapar: Many people think, Comrade Azad, as you call him, is saying two things. He says one thing to you in the letter and praises you and on the other hand, says another thing to the press and sounds sceptical and cynical. Is he double-faced?
Prachanda: Is there a written statement somewhere?
Karan Thapar: Yes, it is in The Hindu on Friday.
Prachanda: I see. I have not gone through that interview and statement.
Karan Thapar: So right now you are not aware that Mr Azad speaks with two voices. He says something to you and something else to the others. Does that worry you or disillusion you?
Prachanda: No, I have to go through that statement in detail. I cannot blame anything on anyone.
Karan Thapar: At the moment you will reserve your judgement.
Prachanda: Yes.
Karan Thapar: The party in India that is most worried about the Maoist victory is the BJP, which says that you will be anti-Hindu in your behaviour and actions. How can you reassure them that this is not going to be the case?
Prachanda: This is an illusion. We are not anti-Hindu or anti-Buddhist or anything like that. We are committed to a secular political system and state. We are also continuously upholding the religious freedom and we understand the phenomenon of Hinduism in Nepal.
Karan Thapar: If the BJP is to win the elections in 2009, is there a possibility that the relations between India and Nepal can suffer?
Prachanda: I do not think so. Even BJP is a very serious party of India. They will understand the dynamism and change in Nepal and will come forward according to the changed situation.

Source: CNN-IBN, May 18, 2008

Maoist optimist

SD Muni

When South Asia is experiencing a fresh democratic wave and peoples' power, Nepal's Maoists should be seen as a powerful, positive manifestation of rising popular aspirations

Almost none among the competitors of Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) — CPN (M), rival parties like the Nepali Congress (NC) and the Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) expected them to emerge as a dominant political force in the elections to the Constituent Assembly. Similarly, almost none among the international community, including India and China, expected the Maoists to perform so well as they have done. With the results, the process of coping with the newly emerged reality has begun.

There are conflicting voices among the political parties on working with the Maoists, within or outside a coalition government. There are strategies being crafted and redefined by the members of the international community to begin engagement with the Maoists so as to nudge them on the democratic roadmap and ensure that Nepal remains stable, peaceful and friendly.

There is no dearth of forces and factors within Nepal and outside that would want to see the Maoists goof up in governance and falter in Constitution- making, thereby get discredited and erode their newly acquired credibility and legitimacy. Such forces may be in for shock and surprise again. They have yet not objectively assessed the degree of prudence and resilience that the Maoists leadership is capable of and have been displaying regularly.

This is clearly reflected in the post-election promises by the Maoists: to work with all other political parties, deal with King Gyanendra softly — even while showing him the exit, respect the role of private business and industry in carrying forward new Nepal's economic agenda and seek a constructive engagement with the international community, particularly India.

The Maoist leadership is acutely aware of their internal political constraints in dealing with the unfolding challenges before them. Such constraints are inherent in the exploded aspirations behind the mandate in their favour, in the 10-year-old insurgency and impatience of their militant cadres who find it painfully slow to come to terms with the complexity and patience of the democratic competitive processes. Besides, the Maoists are short of absolute majority in the newly elected Constituent Assembly.

In looking at Maoist Nepal's unfolding relations with India, three myths carefully nursed so far — out of ignorance or vested interests — need to be shed off. The first is that they will soon become instruments of either the Chinese or Pakistanis to create security nightmares for India, as the discredited monarchical regime in Kathmandu had been used to in the interest of its own political survival. The China of Deng Xiao Ping and his successors have been embarrassed by all those who glorified Maoism. The China of Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao was an ally of the monarchy in Nepal and instrumental in crushing the Maoists militarily. The Maoists cadres seeking shelter or sourcing arms and herbal trade in China were chased away by the Chinese soldiers.

China is fast making up for its past slips and trying hard to cultivate the Maoists. But Chinese success would depend more on the failure of the rest of the international community — rather than artificially using the rhetoric of Mao's thoughts. The Maoists would accept a friendly and cooperative relationship with China but not at the cost of India's interests, that is, if India treats them with respect.

The second myth is about close operational links between the Nepal Maoists and Indian underground Naxalites. India's home ministry establishment has repeatedly denied the depth and relevance of such links. The Maoist and Naxalite leaders have openly exchanged bitter words during the past couple of years. The Maoists have declared that their political agenda has been fulfilled by the election results and what remains is their agenda of economic revolution in Nepal. Fanning the Naxal insurgency and helping them achieve power in India was never the goal of Nepal's Maoists. In meeting the challenge of their economic revolution, they cannot afford to alienate India by cozying up with the Naxalites.

The third myth is about Maoists being anti-India. Not many people know that the Maoist leadership has been ardently seeking understanding and goodwill of the Indian political class since 2002. They have been wanting engagement with the Indian leadership. Their 'anti-India' demands, including the revision of the 1950 Treaty, are not only their original issues but a compilation of such demands made by successive regimes and political parties in Kathmandu.

Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee has done well to reach out to the Maoist leadership soon after the flow of election results. India is hopefully taking the Maoists as a popular force, as the architect of a politically vibrant and socio-economically progressive Nepal. What the Maoists need from India is their acceptance and recognition as the leaders of a confident, self-respecting neighbour which is willing to build a mutually advantageous and cooperative relationship in areas ranging from economic growth, security concerns and people-to-people exchange.

India has earlier indicated its willingness to discuss the treaty of 1950 with Nepal. India changed its treaty text with Bhutan without hurting its long- term security interests. If need be, there should be no difficulty in doing the same with Nepal.

The Maoists know that their economic agenda cannot move forward without creative harnessing of the country's potential resources including hydro-power. They know that this cannot be done with out cooperating with India, and this is India's need as well. They also know that a growing India is an opportunity in the areas of trade, investment, technology and human resources development. In building cooperation, India should ensure a fresh approach. The old policy mindset has to be set aside in writing a new chapter of close relations with South Asian neighbours like Nepal.

India's approach towards the Maoists will considerably influence the attitude of the international community. With the arrival in Kathmandu of the new US ambassador, Nancy Powell, signs of change in the US assessment are already visible. After the elections, the US ambassador has assured that American assistance and cooperation with Nepal will continue even when it is ruled by the Maoists.

Even before the elections, President George Bush had expressed the desire that the Maoists will hopefully work in cooperation with other political parties, thus accepting to deal with them as partners in the government. Former US President Jimmy Carter held talks with the Maoists leaders after the results and accepted that keeping the 'terrorist' tag on them is not a correct approach. The UK and other European Union members have also shown strong inclination to engage with the Maoists.

Indian and international engagement with the new Nepal and its Maoist leadership is desirable and necessary in the interest of Nepal's stability and mainstreaming of the Maoists. The Maoists know that if they have to consolidate their power base among the people of Nepal, they have to deliver on the promises made. And this cannot be done without generous and sustained support from the global community.

Today, when South Asia is experiencing a fresh democratic wave and peoples' power, Nepal's Maoists should be seen as a powerful, positive manifestation of rising popular aspirations. Harnessing these aspirations to build strong democratic institutions within and extensive cooperation among the countries of South Asia is in the mutual interest of both the international community as well as the Maoists of Nepal.

The writer is Senior Visiting Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, Singapore, and former Indian ambassador to Laos

Source: Hardnews, May , 2008

India's choices are limited

Paul Soren

Of the two demands already delivered to Delhi by the victorious Maoists, revision of the 1950 treaty seems more reasonable and India has no option but listen to the new powers in Kathmandu. But the other one, banning Gurkha recruitment in the Indian Army, would be counterproductive for Nepal.

The India-Nepal "Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1950" has always been a bone of contention between the two neighbours. Extensive discussion at different forums and platforms have been held and the issue analysed from all possible angles. Of late, the Nepali and Indian media have been widely fomenting the debate over the reviewing of the treaty.

The issue gained prominence after the recently concluded Constituent Assembly election, where the Maoists emerged as the single largest party and deemed to head the new dispensation. Maoist chairman Prachanda, in his first foreign policy statement, strongly articulated the need for reviewing of the treaty with India in the changed political context. Also, the Maoists wish to end recruitments of Gurkhas in the Indian Army, regulation of the India-Nepal border, restrict Indian vehicles entering Nepal and renegotiate the Mahakali treaty of 1996 on water resources. After the shift in political events in Nepal, the Indian establishment has been left with no other choice but cede to the long overdue demand of the Nepalese.

At the outset, Maoists always termed the treaty being 'unequal' and alleged it only served India's interest. The Maoists have expressed resentment over the treaty and said it questions Nepal's sovereignty. In their 40-point demands presented to the Government, the Maoists had demanded abrogation of the treaty. The demand for reviewing the treaty is not new and Nepal has always expressed discomfort over it. From the mid-1970s, demands for its amendment have been periodically raised. In the mid-1990s, Nepal's first Communist Prime Minister, Man Mohan Adhikary, insisted on reviewing of the treaty and sought greater economic sovereignty.

Apparently, the premise of relations between the two countries is governed by treaties signed with the Rana rulers of the 1950s. It is the foundation on which India-Nepal relations are built, as it addresses the security and economic imperatives of both countries. But Nepal has serious reservations on Clauses V, VI and VII of the 1950 treaty and has often termed it 'unequal'. According to the treaty, neither side shall tolerate any threat to the security of the other by a foreign aggressor and compelled both sides to inform each other of any serious issue or misunderstanding. It also provides equal opportunities for people on both sides to invest in business and other projects.

However, the treaty restricts Nepal to purchase military equipment from any third country without India's consent and stresses the need to do it through Indian territory. Over these years, these accords have strengthened the bilateral relationship between the two countries. It provided people of both sides economic and other benefits. But the Nepalese are in favour of reviewing the treaty based on modern and equitable principles.

The treaty is not completely lopsided but the existing ambiguities should be addressed through mutual consensus. The broad spectrum of relationship on political, economic and people-to-people contact should not be ignored. Due to the geographical closeness, open border system and close social interactions of people from both sides has led to a situation of mutual interdependence. This has pressed both sides to remain responsive and supportive of each other's concern. Complete scrapping of this treaty would result to uneasiness and suffering for people of both sides.

Nepal is undergoing acute poverty and any new dispensation there would find it hard to bring radical economic reforms in a short period. Therefore, Mr Prachanda's wish to see an end to Gurkha recruitment might probably not be seen as a right move and cause resentment. After tourism, the sector from which the country gets most remittances is from Gurkhas serving in India. Lakhs of retired Gurkha personnel depend on Indian Army pension. Besides, complete regulation of the border would bring stringent law and this would deprive people from both sides to travel freely across the border to earn their livelihood.

Currently, India has no option but to agree for reviewing the treaty under the present circumstances. India has responded aptly but it should not ignore her national interests. As India has numerous interests in Nepal and concerns tend to be apprehensive over any political developments in Nepal and especially instability in Terai. Equally, Nepal feels vulnerable if its national integrity is threatened by external concerns. This situation tends to put both sides on separate paths.

The recent statements from the Government that it is ready to review treaties with Nepal are an indication that India is willing. Also, it is time for India to chart a new era of bilateral relations by engaging constructively with the new Nepali establishment which has a popular mandate. India should also allay the apprehensions of Nepali people of pursing a 'big brotherly attitude' and show readiness to address some of the irritants embedded in India-Nepal relationship.

There is also a need to deal with the bilateral issues at various levels with a much broader spectrum to make it more meaningful.

Source: The Pioneer, May 3, 2008

India misses crunch time

Baleshwar Agarwal

The demand for revising the India-Nepal treaty is being foolishly entertained by India. At this rate, Nepal may be lost as a dependable ally.

The Maoist victory in Nepal, even though indecisive, is the end of an important chapter of India's relations with that country and the beginning of a new one marked by great uncertainty. I have been a follower of Nepal affairs since 1951, when I went there as a young correspondent to cover the Mahasamiti of the Nepali Congress. The country has gone through many deaths and rebirths since then, but this is an altogether new situation for me. The emptiness that I feel in my heart is perhaps a small manifestation of the national mood in India on seeing a Communist, demonstrably anti-Indian and pro-Chinese dispensation take over in Kathmandu. In the past, India counted in Kathmandu, whatever the vicissitudes overwhelming that country. But now, India is the diminutive.

At this historic crossroads, the role played by the Indian Government is most unfortunate. New Delhi seem to have lost the influence it wielded in Kathamandu through six decades. It can no longer leverage its economic and political clout. Yet, what is not easily realised is that possibilities still exist for India to play an important role in the process of appointing the next Prime Minister and important members of his Cabinet.

I will come to that later, but first, something most unfortunate and unanticipated has happened this week which, in the context of the emerging situation, diminishes India's prestige in her own backyard. The Maoists, who have got only 29.3 per cent of the vote, are being feted by New Delhi as the unquestioned rulers of Nepal. The new Indian Ambassador, Mr Rakesh Sood, has announced that New Delhi would be willing to work with a "Maoist Prime Minister". Whatever the Maoists want, even if voiced to the reporter of a TV channel, is being given the highest importance in the Indian capital. Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon has given the Maoists their much-needed credibility boost by publicly agreeing to talks on the India-Nepal Treaty.

By far, the biggest disappointment for me was former National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra's statement, given in an interview to Karan Thapar on April 29, in which he seemed to prepare the ground for the Foreign Secretary to recognise the Maoists' demand for treaty revision. It was strange that Mr Mishra, with his immense experience as a diplomat, did not even wait for the formal request to be delivered by the new Government in Kath-mandu. What was the reason for his decision to be so pro-Maoist? Only time will tell.

It is highly improbable to me that the Maoists would keep pressing their demand for revising the treaty. Nepal has more to lose than gain from the exercise because as it is the treaty is heavily tilted in her favour. The first Government of India had been extremely generous to Nepal. Today, India is home to more than six million Nepalese. Suppose India should now ask for an end to the era of free immigration for Nepalese? In the past, Man Mohan Adhikary, the first Communist Prime Minister of Nepal, had also voiced this demand. But, after some time, he stopped talking about it. Good enough for India.

Meanwhile, on the ground, Prachanda's chances of being Prime Minister are as good as any other contender's. Mr Sher Bahadur Deuba is the last India-friendly politician of any consequence. Mr Girija Prasad Koirala is, after all, a pro-India leader despite his reduced circumstances. The need of the hour is that India should recognise that anybody is preferable to the Maoists who represent a grave threat not only to India's security, but also the entire region.

It is for this reason that India should put its weight behind the other contenders for prime ministership.Mr Sher Bahadur Deuba,is enjoying the United States' support. Washington has rightly stood its ground that the Maoists are terrorists and refuse to be awed by their victory. Despite their 120 seats in the First-Past-the-Post system, the Maoists are still short of a majority. In the Proportional Representation system, the Maoists stand to get just 100 seats out of 335. The PR system will give a huge number of seats to the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) and the three "Madhesi" parties. If they come together, then Prachanda would have to sulk as the Leader of the Opposition. Moreover, the CPN(UML) is unlikely to ever join the Maoists in any arrangement.

Why is India not seizing the situation? This is the biggest mystery. The two legs of any nation's foreign policy are national interest and ideology. Taking the latter first, there is every indication that Nepal is headed towards a dictatorship, and that too of the most brutal kind. As far as national interests is concerned, under no circumstances would having a Maoist Prime Minister favourable to India. Like Communists everywhere, their fundamental loyalty lies towards the fulcrum of world Communism, China. There was a time when Beijing dismissed Prachanda and his gang as romantic adventurers. Even in their wildest imagination the Chinese did not bargain for a Maoist victory in the Constituent Assembly election. But, now that the impossible has happened, China will not lose any time to play the "Communist" card to give Prachanda the respectability he so desires in the Communist pantheon. The manner in which Nepal suppressed Tibetan opposition to the Olympic torch relay should open India's -- and the world's eyes -- to the possibility of Nepal being reduced to a vassal state of China.

The situation in Nepal is going from bad to worse. People are leaving Kathmandu with their accumulated savings because nobody wants to continue life under a Communist regime. Business owners are transferring their funds to India. Prachanda is hoping to stem the tide by promising to run a "capitalist" economy, but there are few believers. Anti-India sentiments are bound to get a boost very soon because India has banned rice exports, followed by Bangladesh. Prices have touched absurd levels and the poverty of Nepal has become exacerbated. So, India should look at the possibilities.

Nobody won the Constituent Assembly election. It is still a political logjam in Kathmandu. The time is ripe for New Delhi to launch a new diplomatic initiative. But, at this dark moment, nobody appears to be willing to listen.

-- The writer is Secretary-General of Antar Rashtriya Sahyog Parishad and a reputed expert on India-Nepal relations

Source: The Pioneer, May 3, 2008

Lunatic diplomacy

Arabinda Ghose

Even before a new Maoist-dominated Government of Nepal could formally take office, we have before us the spectacle of regional superpower, India, bowing in deference to every whim and fancy of the self-proclaimed masters in Kathmandu. This week, we saw a succession of important personalities in Government and the strategic community of Delhi issue significant statements in agreement with Communist supremo Prachanda's wish that the India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, 1950, be "revised".

Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon created a new precedent by agreeing to Prachanda's suggestion even before he could be sworn in as Prime Minister and draft a formal letter to the effect that Nepal wishes to replace the 58-year-old document. As usual, the rest of the strategic community fell in line. Even the redoubtable Brajesh Mishra, the National Security Adviser in the Vajpayee Administration, did not question the legitimacy of Prachanda's claim and helped create an ambient atmosphere for Mr Menon to make his acceptance speech.

Saturday Special, which has made Nepal a special area of focus for the past two years (devoting seven issues to the troubled nation), sees this as continuation of the blunders committed by the Manmohan Singh Government since 2005. The External Affairs Ministry must be aware that the formation of a new Government is an extremely uncertain and tricky affair and there is still some uncertainty whether Prachanda would be Prime Minister. Yet, everybody who is anybody on Nepal seems in a great hurry to kowtow to the man whose election victories has not freed him from the terrorist tag. They are using every forum to wax eloquent on India's readiness to convert Prachanda's wishes into commands.

In the lunatic world of jholawala (world) diplomacy, whispers abound that 'big brother' India has beaten Nepal into submission over the past six decades with an 'unequal' treaty. Hence, the great romantic hero, Prachanda, is justified in demanding 'equity'. But to anyone going through the text of the 10-article treaty and the letters exchanged over it on July 31, 1950, and signed in Kathmandu between Mohun Shumsher Jung Bahadur Rana of Nepal and the then Indian Ambassador, Chandreshwar Prasad Narayan Singh, it would be amply clear that the treaty is heavily balanced in favour of Nepal. And for good reason.

No Indian would have ever opposed the provisions of the treaty, because it treats Nepal as a friend and much more. Yet, ever since democracy was re-established in Nepal in 1990, every new Government that takes over in Kathmandu, raises the bilateral temperature by demanding either the abrogation or revision of this treaty. As a correspondent of various newspapers and news agencies in Kathmandu for over a decade, I have lost count of the number of times politicians there have raised the ridiculous demand, only to forget about it after settling down comfortably in office.

Of course, there are provisions with the potential to raise eyebrows. Article V says: "The Government of Nepal shall be free to import, from or through the territory of India arms and ammunitions or warlike material and equipment necessary for the security of Nepal. The procedure for giving effect to this arrangement shall be worked out by the two Governments acting in consultation." The reality is that Nepal does not import any armament without India's knowledge in consideration of India's security needs. Yet, in 1988, Nepal imported anti-aircraft guns from its northern neighbour, China, without bothering to intimate India.

Article VI says: "Each Government undertakes, in token of the neighbourly relation between India and Nepal, to give to the nationals of the other, in its territory, national treatment with regard to participation in industrial and economic development of such territory and to the grant of concessions and contracts relating to such development". However, in para 3 of the letters exchanged, it has been stated: "The Government of India recognise that it may be necessary for some time to come to afford the Nepalese nationals in Nepal protection from unrestricted competition. The nature and extent to this protection will be determined as and when required by mutual agreement between the two governments". This is an example of how the treaty is tilted in favour of Nepal, which sensible people of India support wholeheartedly.

Yet, for unknown reasons, this treaty continues to be demonised. In 1970, when a new Trade and Transit Treaty was due between the two countries, there was much frenzy generated in Kathmandu against its proposed provisions. Demonstrations were organised routinely in front of the Indian Embassy in support of unclear demands. Resultantly, the negotiations were postponed and a scheduled film festival was cancelled. Similar outbursts were observed prior to the finalisation of the Trade and Transit Treaty of 1990 as well. At that time, too, one heard that the "root cause" behind Nepal's poverty was the 1950 Treaty -- an instrument of Indian 'highhandedness'.

It must be stressed that in the past, the demonstrations had had taken place when Nepal was under a monarchy. A former Indian Ambassador famously commented on one occasion: "Not even a leaf can flutter without orders from the palace". But today, Nepal is on the path of becoming a federal democratic republic. One hopes the unseemly debate over the treaty issue will be forgotten and a new relationship with respect for each other's sovereignty and national interests is established for our mutual benefits.

Source: The Pioneer, May 3, 2008