Unlike Indians the Chinese keep up with their words and promises

Mohan Baidya Pokharel ‘KIRAN’

Senior Leader, United Maoist Party

On Threat of A counter Revolution

The people want to see a complete change. There are nevertheless, great challenges ahead of us in our fight for the preservation of our nationalism and total freedom. Mainly, the threats are emerging from the reactionary camps and foreign forces. In this situation, it is still not very clear if the people will emerge as victor. Thus we see that the threat of a counter revolution is still looming large. We are not afraid of the prevailing situation, I think it is rather, we have analyzed the situation quite well. And, also we are completely aware of the ongoing and possible conspiracies against us. We believe that the possibility of a counter revolution remain intact until we draft the new constitution. To clarify more, there is also the presence of reactionary forces in the Constituent Assembly who are conspiring through various means.

On Nepali Congress

The NC has both positive and negative sides. To stand against the monarchy and the stand for republic declaration is the positive part of the NC. But the major question where will the NC stand in the process of drafting the new constitution? In the Ethnic, Gender and Regional issues where will the NC stand, it will perhaps determine the inclination of the NC? To tell you frankly, over the issues of Nationalism and Republic, NC has been still stuck with the status quoist mindset. Surfacially, the NC also seems to be democratic outfit but internally it is not so. Thus we have been watching it very carefully.

On Foreign Interference and India

Clearly, the foreign interference is at an all time high. However, it is completely a false allegation that we came into the peace process with the foreign support. There was the Indian support in the Peoples uprising, there were other forms of support as well. Altogether, it does not and should not mean that we have no moral to raise the issues of national interest now.

There has been the tradition that Nepali politicos reach agreements in New Delhi. The 2007 B.S. agreement was reached in New Delhi. However, the 12-Point Agreement reached between the Seven Parties and the Maoists in New Delhi was made in the interest of Nepal itself but not in the interest of New Delhi.

Nevertheless, now, India is doing all it can to extract “compound interest” out of the 12-Points Agreements made in New Delhi. It is also visible.

Security wise, relation with neighbors is based on mutual trust. One must respect the other. The relationship is based on certain values. But, India has been adopting different principles. If our identity is threatened we will not remain silent. This is it. We must raise the issue of abrogating all the past unequal treaties with India including that of 1950 Treaty. Similarly, issues of land occupation in Susta, Kalapani, Pashupatinagar must also be raised. In the issues of Citizenship, water-resources and Security—we must stop abiding by the long drawn Indian strategy.

The world has changed lot, India must thus also revise its strategy and sign treaties with Nepal on equal basis. We want to have good relations with India but that relation must remain free from coercion.

On Strong ties with China, fears in India

Unlike Indians, the Chinese, on the other hand, keep up with their words and promises. The Chinese policy of non-interference is well practiced even as of today. Whereas the Indians have been using the transitional period in Nepal for their benefit, occupying our lands and unnecessarily interfering in our exclusive affairs. The Chinese would never do that. China is clear in its intent whereas India is still unclear.

On Broader Democratic Alliance

Our administration is set with either the erstwhile Panchayati or multi-party period mindset. Old mindset is still prevalent in our administration. We still practice old laws and regulations. However, the Maoists are the ones who advocate in favor of building new structure by demolishing the old redundant ones. Basically, this is what the people also want from us. But, we have been trapped by those plagued with old mindset and we have been paralyzed. Look at the difficulty, we have to continue with the old setup, yet have to bring something new as well. Unless we remove the old, how can we build a new one? We must need a breakthrough at this point. We are searching for the path where we can push our agenda. The people have sacrificed their blood for change but not to retract.

On Performances of Government

In reality, we are also not satisfied. There are various reason for this, however, it is also not that the government has already tied its hands and sitting in an idle mood. We are doing our best to make the government becoming more effective as demanded by the people at large. But, the UML- our partner, is taking on the turtle stance.

But, since we are already in government, the possibilities are either we fail or we succeed. Let me guarantee, we will not fail. And, it is not that we have to stick to power for long, we can take on the road to yet another revolution. If we can’t bring changes while being in the government, we will adopt revolutionary measures to achieve our set goals and objectives.

On whether Mohan Baidya has surrendered to Prachanda?

I have not surrendered to any one, Prachanda is our party boss thus I respect him. On ideological grounds, I have never surrendered. We always move ahead holding healthy debates and discussions. We have already devised our new strategies to run the party affairs. We did not limit ourselves to the “Democratic Republic”, we took the line to establish typical kind of Democratic Republican order. We favor a Peoples’ Federal Democratic National Republic. While adopting the line, no one has been defeated, the party has won. The People’s desire has been fulfilled.

We want our form of republican order immediately. The old model of republic can not address the problem of the people but only the peoples’ republic can which is what is our ultimate goal.

(Dristi Vernacular Weekly, 17 March 2009)

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

China keen to re-engage with Nepal

Paul Soren

China last week supported the April 10 Constituent Assembly (CA) elections and reaffirmed its support to the peace process and economic assistance aimed to bring peace and political stability in the country. Of late, China has begun taking a keen interest in the unfolding political developments in Nepal. On March 2, Chinese Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs He Yafei led a nine-member delegation to Nepal. During their three-day visit, the delegation met with Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, Chief of the Army Staff General Rukmangat Katuwal, Foreign Secretary Gyan Chandra Acharya and participated in the 7th consultative conference of Foreign Ministers of the two countries.
Although China had sent several high-level official delegations to Nepal last year, it was the first official foreign ministry delegation to Nepal. Through these visits China aimed to revive the dormant relationship between the two countries, stagnated primarily due to Nepal’s internal political instability and the active-presence of foreign powers in the region. China also promised to extend road and railway network and supply fuel to Nepal. The proposed rail link connecting Kathmandu to Lhasa will put the Chinese in a more advantageous position. This will reduce Nepal’s over-dependence on India. Furthermore, China promised to expand cooperation with Nepal and support Nepal’s cause in regional and international forum, including SAARC.
Earlier, China maintained a distance from the democratic forces and preferred to align with the monarchy. However, in the changed circumstances, China was keen to engage with the democratic forces and the new political dispensation. It would like to have a dispensation in Kathmandu which would benefit China’s national interest and support its policies on Tibet and Taiwan. More importantly, China would like to see the Indian influence and growing western presence in Nepal reduced.

Source: South Asia Weekly, March 9, 2008

India reiterates support for Nepali elections

India reiterated her support to Nepal for holding timely elections to the Constituent Assembly (CA) and expressed confidence that the elections would be held on April 10, 2008. Spelling out her position India also stated that it does not support any type of secessionist movement in Nepal. Rather India wants to support Nepal in her attempts to accomplish her democratic goals. In a goodwill gesture and to express solidarity to the Nepali government, the Indian National Congress (INC) party, key constituent in the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) sent a four member high-level delegation to Nepal. The delegation was led by Divijay Singh, accompanied by Veerappa Moily, Dr Shakeel Ahmed and Jitin Prasada. The delegation was assigned the task to take stock of political situation in Nepal and to extend India’s support to the Nepali people.

In Kathmandu, the delegation met with the Nepali Congress (NC) President and Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, Home Minister Krishna Prasad Situala, Minister of Peace and Reconstruction R C Poudel, Speaker of House, Chief Election Commission CEC), senior leaders of all political parties including the Maoists, leaders of agitating Terai parties and civil society representatives. The delegation extended all possible support for timely election. India also offered to mediate between the Nepali government and agitating groups in Terai, if both parties agreed to it. India hopes that the demands of the Madhesis and other agitating groups to be addressed within the framework of agreed principles.

Over the years, India has played a crucial role in assisting the Nepali government and parties in resolving political problems. During times of crisis and confusion it has been able to broker peace between conflicting parties. Thereby, India will continue to remain a major player in Nepal.

However, unfolding of events, deepening political crisis and eruption of violence in Terai remains a serious concern for India. It is concerned over the deteriorating security situation in Terai which might impinge upon India’s own security in states along the India-Nepal border. Besides, it is apprehensive that if the elections are delayed further the country will experience more chaos.

Source: South Asia Weekly, February 17, 2008

Confused donors

Once a conflict is over, aid agencies seem paralyzed. Instead of sending help, they send study groups. There is often a lag of years before moving from humanitarian relief to real economic development. By the time such help actually arrives, it is often too late: war has been re-ignited," said Jeffrey D Sachs, an influential economist, about post-conflict countries. His perception has become painfully familiar to Nepal. This was the message that came from the two-day Nepal Donor Consultation Meeting that concluded in Kathmandu last Friday. The government expected the aid agencies to fork out substantial amounts of money to boost the economy in the post-conflict scenario, while the donors gave the message that they were unwilling to support economic reconstruction until there was complete political stability and full democracy, from the local to the central levels.
The donors' rebuff seemed to show that they didn't realize that Nepal could not afford to wait in addressing the immediate development and economic challenges to keep the hard-earned peace. What is the use of the aid after the scenario that the donors desire emerges? When there is functional democracy and complete political stability, the government does not need to depend on aid. At that time, the confidence of the private sector will have been high, and their investments can be channeled into reenergizing the economy and creating new jobs. It is right now that the government most urgently needs the support of its development partners to fulfill the people's expectations and aspirations. On the other hand, the donors did not systematically distinguish post-conflict settings as it requires a distinctive approach. They didn't know that it should not be simply development as usual. The donors talked about helping the fragile peace process, but no concrete effort was initiated. It would have been generous and a real support for the peace process if the donors had come up with proposals and assistance to accelerate the pace of development and growth through quick-impact programs.
Look at the ground realities. The adverse economic situation, a painful consequence of the war, is obvious. Capital — physical, human and social — has been destroyed. And Nepal's ability to rebuild itself is limited by weak institutions, scarce human and financial resources and economic fragility. Under these circumstances, financial support from the international community appears to be the only chance for Nepalis, who are dazed and bereft of hope, to mend their lives. The government also has to play its part perfectly. The implementation side should be strengthened. Improving the morale of the private sector, expediting reforms to improve the business environment including the functioning of state mechanisms, greater accountability, transparency and fighting corruption are some things that the government must not overlook. With better policies, better priorities for reform and bigger and better-timed aid, it is possible to restore the post-conflict economy considerably and more rapidly.

Source: The Kathmandu Post, February 25, 2008

Nepal: The Coming April Crisis, and India’s Role

Sharply contending parties in Nepal agreed to have the future of the country contested in a elections for a constituent assembly. This has given rise to huge debate within Nepal, and among its people, over what kind of future to have, what kind of state and social system. Various forces (including the pro-Indian Nepalese Congress party NC) have repeatedly postponed and impeded those elections — leading the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) to point out that the future can also be settled by other means. There are (as several commentators note) two undefeated armies in Nepal — one belonging to the government, the other led by the Maoists. Currently the elections are scheduled for April — and there is great tension over whether they will be sabotaged again, and (if so) what will follow. India is accused of helping torpedo the elections by stirring up secessionist forces in the Terai, the strategic agricultural border area in southern Nepal. Possibilities include renewed Maoist armed uprising, broad mass protests, a crackdown by the Nepalese military, continued stalemated crisis and possibly an invasion by the powerful nearby Indian army — or various combination of these things. A piece from the Nepal Times follows.

Plan A…. India Doesn’t Seem to Have a Plan B on Nepal
by PRASHANT JHA in NEW DELHI (India’s Capital), Nepal Times: Sat Feb 16, 2008 5:39 am (PST)
New Delhi is confused and frustrated about continued uncertainty over elections in Nepal.
Nepal watchers here are convinced that missing the deadline yet again will mark the collapse of the peace process. They say they are working on politicians in Kathmandu to get their act together, but admit their leverage is limited.

An exasperated official told Nepali Times : “We can’t do much if Kathmandu’s myopic political class doesn’t want elections. They will create new excuses, and this time the excuse seems to be the Madhes.”
Indian agencies are said to be in touch with all Madhesi groups, but deny India is instigating trouble in the Tarai. “Why would we want to prolong instability and bloodshed in the Madhes when its first negative fallout is on our own side in Bihar and UP?” asked one official.

Delhi has alerted the Bihar authorities about the presence of Madhesi militants, but officials say without more engagement from Kathmandu it is unlikely that Patna will step up the heat on the extremists.
The policy thrust now is for a quick fix on the Madhes to enable polls to go ahead. It is a difficult balancing act of backing the larger process while maintaining influence over Madhesi groups. India is happy with the unity and alliance of Madhesi groups and the distilled six point demands.
“The government must sincerely reach out to the Madhes, and Madhesi groups shouldn’t allow themselves to be used as a pretext to cancel polls. They should consolidate and get votes,” said a senior diplomat, summing up Indian policy.

India is also keen on an understanding between the NC and Madhesi groups to strengthen ‘democratic forces’ so they can stand up to the Maoists. On her recent visit to Delhi, sources said US ambassador Nancy Powell warned her interlocutors that the Maoists were bullying their way through the process. There is concern here that the Maoists will use the YCL to intimidate voters and rig elections.
India doesn’t seem to have a neat Plan B in case elections do not happen. But one top policymaker told us, “We don’t even want to think of that scenario…it will be like a civil war.”
Meanwhile, the king is lobbying hard in Delhi to retain the monarchy. Son-in-law Raj Bahadur Singh was in town this week meeting the BJP’s Rajnath Singh and Jaswant Singh, among others. The message is that the Maoists plan a power grab, and only the monarchy can counter it. The royals were pleased about BJP prime ministerial candidate L K Advani launching a blistering critique of India’s Nepal policy last week.
Nepal is high on New Delhi’s agenda these days. Minister for External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee personally tracks Nepal and speaks regularly with Prime Minister Koirala. The visit to Kathmandu this week by senior Congress leaders Digvijay Singh and Verappa Moily is described here as testimony to the importance Sonia Gandhi attaches to the situation in Nepal.

Source: Nepal Times, February 16, 2008

Nepal 2007: A Review of Political Developments

Paul Soren

Overview

Nepal’s progress towards democracy and stability was marked by two historic developments: First, the decision by the Maoists to join the mainstream politics and become part of the interim government. Second was the abolition of the monarchy. The peace process advanced rapidly in 2007 following the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) by the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) government and the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-Maoist) in November 2006. The government’s promise to hold Constituent Assembly (CA) elections by mid-June 2007 was the first step.

This process was, however, seriously interrupted due to political disruptions, misunderstanding between political parties and Maoists, and the continuing Terai problems on Madhesh issue, which threatened to derail the peace process. The violent agitations in the Terai emerged as a new challenge for the new government which was struggling to cope up with the Maoists openly violating the peace accord by indulging in violent activities. On several occasions, the SPA and Maoists leadership were at loggerheads over political issues, delaying the elections at least twice raising questions about their credibility and intentions.


Political Transition

The year began on a positive note. On January 15, 2007, the interim government promulgated the interim constitution and suspended the institution of monarchy. The SPA and Maoists formed an interim government under Nepali Congress (NC) leader Girija Prasad Koirala. The Maoists participation in the government, marked a new era in Nepal’s history. The government announced a Common Minimum Programme (CMP) and announced to hold elections in June 2007.

In an equally important decision, the Parliament passed a second amendment to the interim Constitution authorising the Parliament to abolish the institution of monarchy by a two-thirds majority if the King conspired to disrupt the polls. Though, the King had been stripped off most of his powers, the Maoists ensured that the institution of monarchy was abolished. They feared monarchy may jeopardize the elections.

The government was also assigned the task to hold the assembly elections in June but it was delayed due to political confusion and lack of preparation on the part of the parties. Even the Election Commission (EC) said it was technically impossible to conduct free and fair elections on June 20 due to fragile security environment. Finally, after months of discussion it was decided to hold the elections on November 22. The Maoist Parliamentarians, however, chose to resign and put two important pre-conditions, declaration of republic and proportional representative system. They also called for a special Parliamentary session to decide on these issues. A special session was held and the Parliament passed both these resolutions with some amendments. A legislation was passed that enabled the elections to include a mixed-allotment system, combining first-past-the-post and proportional representation system, an important demand of the Maoists and several ethnic groups across the country.

On December 23, the SPA and Maoists signed a 23-point new agreement which cleared the way for holding of polls. The Parliament passed an amendment to the interim constitution declaring Nepal federal democratic republic. Another amendment increased the number of members from 497 to 601. Now, 335 members will be elected on proportional representation system, 240 members on first- past- the- post system and 26 members will be nominated by the Prime Minister. This provision is expected to accommodate aspirations of marginalised and deprived sections and provide them an opportunity to represent their political viewpoint. These steps clearly denote a forward movement in the political scene in Nepal.


Elections

The Constituent Assembly election is an issue of intense debate across the country. To some extent, the government’s inability to hold the polls on time and the postponement undermined the credibility of the interim government, the SPA and that of the Maoists. The parties were unprepared and were hesitant to seek public mandate. Even the Maoists, due to their declining public image and shrinking support base, mainly in the Terai, were apprehensive of participating in the polls. In fact, the major political stakeholders in Nepal were trying to avoid the elections. The situation worsened after the Maoist ministers resigned from the cabinet in September and put forward two conditions. The suspension of the elections only eroded the parties’ image and raised questions on the legitimacy of the government.

The postponement was received with varied degrees of reactions. The civil society came out strongly and demanded the resignation of the government. The government’s move gave an opportunity to the pro-monarchy parties to demand Koirala’s resignation. Even the international community was baffled by the government’s decision to defer the polls and expressed concern.

The parties in the coalition government and some from outside the alliance accused the leadership of delaying the process deliberately. The political environment turned ripe with charges and counter-allegations. A major share of the blame should be borne by the Maoists. It was their insistence on first settling their 22 demands---mainly two dealing with declaring Nepal as a republic and adopting fully proportional representative based election system—which only added to the atmosphere of uncertainty.

Since joining the interim government, the Maoists have always been actively involved in political decisions but suddenly they decided to backtrack from their earlier agreement. This move at a critical juncture was seen as part of their strategy and tactic to pressurise the government to accept their demands. A more flexible approach on the part of both the parties would have helped defuse the situation.


Seven Party Alliance

The Jana Aandholan of 2006 mandated parties to work jointly and find a plausible solution to the pressing problems of the country. It was therefore the responsibility of the SPA and Maoists to ensure a smooth political transition.. However, both the parties chose to ignore their primary responsibility and instead harboured dissimilarities on various issues and refused to resolve them in the larger interest.

The SPA’s behaviour had always been characterised by suspicion and partisan interest. They preferred closed-door decision-making to a more transparent process, making consensus-building difficult. This was aggravated by poor discipline within the parties, with individual politicians making provocative statements and pursuing personal vendettas. Opinions within the party were also divided over the issue of declaring the country a republic. Like Maoists, the SPA too were bent on cornering the spoils of being in power rather than consolidating the peace process.

Amidst fears of losing the polls, the SPA constituents-- the Nepali Congress (NC) and NC-Democratic-- reviewed their policies and initiated talks for unity. On September 25, leaders of both factions of Nepali Congress-Koirala and Sher Bahadur Deuba agreed to merge and become the single largest political party.

The Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist)--UML, the second largest political party was put in a Catch- 22 situation after several of its cadres expressed their willingness to join the Maoists rather than aligning with NC. At some point of time the UML was thinking of forming alliance of all the Left parties to counter the NC.

The SPA leadership was not able to deal with the important issues in a decisive manner. But to be fair, they did make attempts to bridge the gap between expectations and performance of the government. The alliance set up a task force, representing members from all seven parties, to finalise points of consensus and prepare the draft agreement. The taskforce recommended for a 20-point pact to end the current political stalemate and evolve an understanding on crucial issues like declaring the country as a republic and the shape of the electoral system. The SPA leaders succeeded in evolving an understanding and endorsed the new pact, and helped end the year0long political stalemate.




Maoists

The Maoists joined the mainstream politics with a political objective in their mind and their subsequent decisions and actions were part of this strategy. In February 2007, during the People’s War (PW) anniversary, Maoists Chairman Prachanda announced his party’s position on several major issues. He emphasized Maoists commitment to establish a republican state. He also reiterated their group’s decision to participate in the elections and cooperate with the democratic forces. However, in April 2007, the Maoists turned back on their promise and demanded that Nepal be declared a republic before holding the elections. This was mainly done to recover from the damage they suffered in Terai and to justify their decade-long armed struggle.

This stance dramatically changed the political situation in Nepal. The Maoist held their fifth plenum in August in Kathmandu which was attended by more than 2000 party members. The plenum unanimously passed political and organisational report of Prachanda with some amendments. The report also put forth two preconditions for the elections – an immediate announcement of the formation of a republic by Parliament and implementation of a Proportional Representation (PR) based electoral system. Subsequently, the Maoist Central Committee meeting also implemented the decision of the fifth plenum.

The Maoists were also concerned over their growing unpopularity and rising dissent within the party. The Maoists affiliated Young Communist League (YCL) was involved in various violent activities and their acts were roundly condemned across the country. The Maoists made initiatives to restructure the party to demonstrate their intension to transform it from a revolutionary group to a political organization. However, the violence unleashed by their cadres undermined their political alteration and the peace process. The Maoists pre-poll demand put a spanner in the electoral works as none of the parties were sure about the next course of political direction in the country. They made continuous effort to make the interim Parliament declare a republic. Gauging the political environment, Prachanda announced formation of a possible Left Front to contest the elections which was received with wider acceptance from all other Left parties. The aim was to counter the NC and other royalist forces. The UML came out openly supporting the Maoists demand for republic.

In September, the Maoists quit the coalition government after their demands for announcement of republic before the elections and proportional representation-based election system were not accepted. However, they decided not to burn the bridge completely and continued persuading the SPA leadership to accept their demands in the larger interest. Though Prachanda and senior Maoist leaders strongly advocated for the need to hold the polls under the proportional representation system, the Maoist cadre indulged in violence despite their commitment for peace. At one time, the Maoists strongly supported delaying the elections and proposed a new agreement with the SPA. These moves and rhetoric were mainly tactical move to put pressure on the government to meet their demands.

The Maoist withdrawal from the government was prompted by unhappiness with the implementation of the peace deal, pressure from their own cadres and a growing realisation that their electoral prospects may be poor.


Terai Trouble

The continuing crisis in the Terai region poses a serious challenge for the present government. The Madhesi groups have been demanding the restructuring of the state on federal lines; adopt proportional electoral system and delimitation of election constituencies on basis of population ratio and geographical conditions. Although many of the Madhesi grievances were genuine and needed to be amicably resolved, but the wave of violence indulged in by different groups undermined their objective. Over a dozen underground groups became active with their own set of agendas. Almost all of them strongly advocated violence as a weapon against the State to achieve their objectives.

The government's initiatives to contain the movement at initial phase resulted in worsening the situation and dramatically increased the Madhesi involvement. The agitating groups rejected the offer of negotiations from the government and continued with their violent agitation across the region.

The government was, however, successful in bringing the Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum (MJF) to the negotiating table. During the three rounds of peace talks, many key issues including the demand for federal structure, autonomy and proportional representation were discussed. In the last round, the government rejected MJF’s demand to dissolve the interim Parliament which provoked the group to warn that it would start another agitation. The government and MJF, however, decided to settle their differences and agreed to a 22-point deal on August 30. According to the agreement, the assembly will decide the character boundaries, and rights of autonomous states under a federal structure, on the basis of suggestions from State Restructuring Commission. In a positive note, the MJF renounced its demand for a fully proportional electoral system to cooperate in conducting the polls.

Apart from MJF, two other prominent armed factions-- the Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha (JTMM), one led by Jai Krishna Goit and another by Jwala Singh demanded a separate state for the Madhesis. These groups operate in the entire Terai region but are stronger mainly in the eastern part of Nepal. Their presence is visible in almost all the major industrial areas. There are also forces, with their hidden agendas, backing the monarchy and pro-royalist in fuelling the Madhesi uprising. The Indian Rightist groups are instigating the Madhesi uprising by fuelling religious sentiments. The World Hindu Federation (WHF), a Hindu fundamentalist group, Shiv Sena-Nepal, National Defence Force and Nepal Independent Youth Society (NIYS) are fuelling religious sentiments. The WHF, NDF and Shiv Sena-Nepal have expressed displeasure at Nepal's transformation into a secular nation. These fundamentalist groups in Nepal are being strongly backed by Indian Rightist groups. They have been demonstrating and demanding for return to pre-Jana Andolan period. All these forces intend to disrupt the elections and derail the peace process. The government continues to face difficult time in dealing with these armed groups, especially after it rejected the Goit faction's demand for a United Nations (UN) mediation.

As the year closed, the crisis in Terai only worsened. A group of Parliamentarians from Terai resigned from Parliament on December 10. This once again raised doubts about the elections. Senior Nepali Congress leader and Minister for Science and Technology, Mahant Thakur, along with three other influential Terai leaders, Hridayesh Tripathi formerly with (Nepal Sadbhawana Party-Anandi Devi), Mahendra Yadav of (Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist) (CPN-UML) and Ram Chandra Raya of Rastriya Prajatantra Party resigned from the Parliament alleging the government and parties insensitivity and indifference towards resolving the Terai problems.

The Madhesi groups also showed signs of unity. The newly-formed Terai Madhes Democratic Party (TMDP) led by senior Madhesi leader Mahanta Thakur and the Joint Madhesi Front (JMF), an alliance of the Madhesi People’s Right Forum (MPRF) led by Upendra Yadav and Sadbhavana Party (SP) led by Rajendra Mahato, jointly warned to start a decisive movement if the government failed to fulfill their demand before the polls.


Role of External Powers

India’s contribution in facilitating the process of democracy in Nepal was apparent. India played a crucial role in bringing the democratic forces and Maoists together under a common platform which led to the signing of peace accord. India facilitated the evolution of a broader political consensus among different forces. During the time of political crisis and confusion, India brokered peace between various factions. The eruption of violence in Terai and the deepening political crisis concerned India most and it expressed serious concern over the developments.

However, India’s pro-active engagement has not been well received by some political stakeholders in Nepal. After the spurt in the Terai violence, some political leaders and the Maoists started accusing India of supporting a secessionist movement in the area. Though much of India’s policy has been reactive, it still continues to strengthen the bilateral relationship by providing economic assistance for development programmes, and for the preparation of polls. By and large, India will continue to be a major player in Nepal.

Some of the major external powers, namely the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK) and European Union (EU) have been towing India’s line. All these countries have promised to support the peace process and democracy for stability in Nepal. They have been unanimously voicing their support for the peace process and have been urging the government to hold the elections. Much of the support by UK and EU countries was focused on development projects linked with the peace process rather than military. The EU countries argued that the Nepali people’s aspirations for change will not be fulfilled unless there is development taking place.

The Americans, however, had a different agenda. The US government reiterated its stance to support the peace process and an early election. It, however, expressed serious concern on the Maoists role and their activities. They continued to perceive the Maoists as a threat to the evolution of democracy in Nepal. In the present circumstances, the US, UK and EU countries will continue to wait and watch the developments taking place.

China kept a close watch on the developments in Nepal. China established contacts with the interim government, parties and most importantly with the Maoists. In 2007, China sent several high ranking government officials and important leaders of the Communist Party of China (CPC) to Nepal to explore feasibility to strengthen ties with the present establishment. Through these high-level visits China tried to convince Nepal that it continued with its non-interventional approach. Besides, China promised to provide economic assistance, expand rail and road network and support the peace process and polls in Nepal. By and large, China initiated an assertive foreign policy and tried to engage actively in the political transition.

Source: ORF, February 1, 2008

CHINESE HIGH LEVEL DELEGATION ARRVING TO ASSESS NEPAL SITUATION

Kathmandu: Nepal’s threat loaded political transition appears to have jolted the northern neighbor China as well of late. It is understandable that any political upheaval in Nepal’s Terai or mountains would have a “direct” impact upon the security situation of adjoining Nepal-China borders. And thus any interest taken by China in the unfolding turbulent political situation in this country can’t be taken otherwise. This is so also because India-the real trouble maker-has been taking more than the desired and the required interests in the political situation in this country and thus China’s –better late than never-exhibition of her legitimate interests in Nepali affairs is not only genuine but warranted as well.

In the recent weeks and months, it is becoming visibly clear that China will not leave this “beleaguered” country to the mercy of foreign forces more so that of India. Of late the Chinese high authorities have begun taking “proper” and the needed interest in the political developments unfolding in this country much to the chagrin of those who conclude that Nepal must remain under their periphery and thus abide by the dictates passed on to Nepal and its Indo-pendent leaders.

No wonder then China is sending a high level delegation to Nepal led by Dr. Wang Jiarui, who is the 17th CPC Central Committee, Head of the International Liaison Department of the CPC Central Committee of China to assess the political situation here. Dr. Jirui is considered to be a high level authority in the Chinese political hierarchy and thus his trip to Kathmandu would “mean” much to Nepal, analysts say. The Chinese dignitary is expected to be in Nepal at the invitation of Nepal’s foreign ministry by the end of this month. Unsubstantiated reports have it that Dr. Wang is coming Nepal on 30th November.

Reports say that Dr. Wang has already left the Chinese Capital and is currently in the Republic of Korea. Upon completion of this visit, he is expected to head for Nepal for a four day long sojourn here. The Chinese delegation led by Dr. Wang is supposed to meet Nepal’s Prime Minister and various leaders of Nepal’s political parties. Dr. Wang’s visit is coincided with one Maoists top-hats’ declaration recently that the Maoists party will “soon” have formal ties with the Communist party of China. Ram Bahadur Thapa alias Badal talking to a weekly recently declared that his party will soon have “formal” ties with the Communist party of China. To recall, the Chinese envoy in Nepal, Zheng Xiangling, also had some time back said that his country was about to establish formal links with the Maoists party of Nepal. Dr. Wang’s visit is loaded with meaning given the envoy’s admission that his country’s party will have “relations” with the Maoists.

Such“heart rendering” news might not be taken in good taste by the Indian side which concludes that the Nepali Maoists must abide by their dictates. The Chinese delegation upon the completion of his brief Nepal sojourn is all set to make an official trip to India wherein he is supposed to meet Sonia Gandhi and other influential leaders of there. Unconfirmed reports say that Dr. Wang is raising the issue of Nepal’s Terai crisis with the Indian leaders. High placed sources say that Dr. Wang in New Delhi may remind the Indian establishment of what the then Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of China, Marshal Chen Yi, had talked of Nepal. To recall, Marshal Chen Yi had told that any attack on Nepal would be construed as an attack on mainland China itself. The Chinese envoy in Kathmandu too talked in the recent months that Marshal Chen Yi’s views were still valid. This adds to the significance of Dr. Wang’s visit to India and his possible talks about Nepal hinting India not to “harass” the northern neighbor-Nepal.

Source: Telegraph Nepal, November 25, 2007

INDIA-CHINA PERSPECTIVE: NEPAL’S FALTERING PEACE PROCESS

Jan Sharma

India’s long-standing policy towards Nepal seeks to:

(a) Engage all political forces, including the CPN-M as well as the monarchy,
(b) Install a government friendly to India,
(c) Forestall any government unfriendly to India,
(d) Promote Indian political, economic and security interests,
(e) Thwart any attempt to challenge Indian supremacy and domination in Nepal, and
(f) Prevent Nepal diversifying sources of arms other than India. India’s interests in Nepal are extensive – from security to water resources for irrigation.

Nepal also shares a 1,880 km border with India to the east, south and west, and the best military talents among the Nepali hill people are recruited in the Indian Army estimated to be over 100,000. India has also refused to recruit a single Madhesi Nepal in their army obviously on grounds of their inferior military qualities. In addition, there are over 115,000 Indian government pensioners in Nepal whose welfare is the responsibility of the Indian Army Ex-Servicemen Welfare Organization (IEWON). It’s a huge network, given the number of family members and dependents, most of them in remote hills where CPN-M has its sway. The conflict-induced exodus of young Nepalis in India is estimated at 4 million and rising.

Top CPN-M leaders operated from India, giving credence to popular perception that the so-called “people’s war” was in fact a tool of Indian diplomacy. The meeting between Prachanda and leaders of communist parties represented in Parliament at Champasari near Siliguri in India in August 2001 and again in Lucknow on November 20, 2003 and March 29, 2004 was a huge embarrassment to India. In the context of the 9/11, Minister for External Affairs Jaswant Singh of India in September 2001 described the Maoists as “terrorists,” and pledged full support to Nepal to fight it. His successor Yashwant Sinha during his visit to Nepal in August 2002 expressed “concern over the clandestine use of the Nepali soil by Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence for anti-Indian activities.” Indian Chief of the Army Staff General N. C. Vij visited Nepal in April 2002 to discuss military cooperation.

India nabbed Chandra Prasad Gajurel, Maoist Politburo member, at Chennai airport in India on August 19, 2003 and formally charged him of traveling under a fake document to Europe. Some saw it as a “major rethink” of India’s policy [Josse, 2004]. Unlike Gajurel, Matrika Prasad Yadav and Suresh Ale Magar arrested in Lucknow in India on February 8, 2004 were handed over to Nepal without formal charges. The arrest of Mohan Vaidya, second highest ranking in party command after Prachanda, in Siliguri on March 29, 2004 was described as a “consequence of the alliance and bargaining between the Indian and Nepali feudal rulers against Nepal’s rivers and other natural resources” [Prachanda, 2004]. Indian security officials seized important documents, including maps outlining planned Maoist attacks on security targets in Nepal.

It was reported that CPN-M was creating bases in Bihar to target security forces in Nepal and that international terror group and “a country hostile to India” may use them to create disturbances in the area and thus had “security implications” for India [TOI, 2003]. Instead of a military solution, India wanted a political solution, as indicated by its suggestion in November 2003 for the formation of a national government in Nepal to resolve conflict:

The Prime Minister of India expressed concern over the serious security situation prevailing in Nepal and stressed the need to take up urgent broad-based measures to deal with it. In this context, the Prime Minister reaffirmed India’s consistent position that a national consensus needs to be evolved based on the principles of multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy. This would require both the institution of monarchy as well as the political parties to demonstrate flexibility and reach a consensus to address the challenges posed by the Maoist insurgency. A representative government with the participation of all parliamentary parties, working in close cooperation with the monarchy, would assist in evolving a national response to the situation [Sarna, 2003].

The Indian policy has undergone subtle shift since a Left-backed Congress-led coalition of Manmohan Singh was installed in May 2004. Minister for External Affairs Natwar Singh of India visited Nepal in June 2004 even as Prime Minister Deuba had not even formed his Cabinet. Singh gave an unsolicited advised to Nepal: “It is only a representative multiparty government, working in close concert with the institution of constitutional monarchy, which can restore political stability in Nepal. This would also pave the way for holding elections to new parliament and tackling the insurgency through peaceful negotiations” [EoI, 2004].

After the royal coup in February 2005, India suspended arms supplies and asked China to refuse arms to Nepal. New Delhi also successfully worked on a strategy to unite Prachanda and Bhattarai within the CPN-M, then cemented the SPA to oppose the king, and finally engineered SPAM “understanding” in what was a tactical shift to an alternative to the king from its earlier stand that constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy [India Today, 2005]. There was also suspicion that a prolonged freeze on military assistance would dilute traditional military cooperation between India and Nepal.

An Indian pro-establishment scholar argued for a “practical engagement” with the CPN-M to ensure Nepal’s stability, a “democratic monarchy” and “its internal autonomy preserved from the growing Western and other undesirable influences” [Muni, 2003]. India has been successful in pleading that “no arms should be given to Nepal which are more sophisticated than those in the Indian armoury” because India does not want “the level of conflict in Nepal to be upgraded” [Outlook, 2003]. India after the royal takeover of February 2005 was no more talking about constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy but was seeking “alternative” to the king [India Today, 2005].

India in a sense punished King Gyanendra not because of his assault on democracy and freedom but because of his audacity to challenge India’s supremacy at the summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in Dhaka where it threatened to veto entry of Afghanistan as a new member unless China was simultaneously invited to join as an observer. The summit concluded with Afghanistan became the eighth member, and both China and Japan admitted as observers. China without even being present at the summit just tore up India’s Monroe doctrine [Mohan, 2005]. The summit declaration noted that “small states require special measures for support from all concerned for safeguarding their sovereign independence and territorial integrity” and that “protection of small states should be firmly rooted in scrupulous adherence to the UN Charter, rule of law, the strict adherence to universally accepted principles and norms related to sovereign rights and territorial integrity of all states, irrespective of their size” [Dhaka Declaration, 2005].

China

China has traditionally lent strong and unequivocal support to the monarchy but is likely to have friendliest of relations with anyone in the saddle of power. China would like to have a stable and strong regime in Nepal because it borders Tibet, its soft underbelly. China is wary of hostile environment in the neighborhood, and is watching closely the activities of a large Tibetan population in Nepal. It has also been recently stressing on integrating the economies of Nepal and Tibet. It is for these considerations that Beijing described the royal coup as Nepal’s “internal affair.” At the same time, it has categorically disassociated itself with the CPN-M, saying “neither the communist party nor any entity of the government of the People’s Republic of China has any link with and support for the terrorists of Nepal.” The official Chinese position has always been that the Nepal government would “properly handle its domestic issues” [Zhang, 2001]. It subsequently accused self-styled Maoists, which it described as “anti-government forces” of “usurping the name of the leader of the Chinese people. China supports Nepal’s fight against the anti-government forces and hopes for peace, stability and economic development for its neighbour” [Liu, 2002].

During his first state visit to China in July 2002, King Gyanendra reassured President Jiang Zemin that Nepal “will not allow the emergence of elements ruining against the development of Nepal-China ties. It will not permit within its borders any activities that undermine China’s interests” [People’s Daily, 2002]. The reference was clearly Tibet, which Nepal recognizes as an inalienable and integral part of China. Beijing, which shares a 1,400 kilometer border with Nepal, is worried by the presence of an estimated 35,000 Tibetans in Nepal who have fled from Tibet and could launch anti-China activities from Nepal, as was the case with the Khampa insurgency in the 1960s and crushed by the Nepal Army in 1974. It is for this reason that it has been maintaining a close watch on the movement of Tibetans in Nepal, especially since the flight of Karmapa to India in the summer of 2000. In a major policy departure, the royal regime arrested 18 Tibetans, including eight minors, fleeing China into Nepal and handed over to the Chinese authorities in Kathmandu in July 2003.

Beijing welcomed the move but Washington deplored Nepal’s handling of the issue which “not only violates international norms and practices regarding the humane treatment of asylum seekers, but also tarnishes the Government of Nepal’s long-standing and well-deserved reputation for tolerance and hospitality.” Nepal subsequently closed down the office of the Dalai Lama’s Representative in Kathmandu near the royal palace. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also stopped providing travel documents it had been providing since 1990 to Tibetan and Bhutanese refugees for third country travel. Nepal gave “unequivocal” support for the Chinese anti-secessionist law in 2005 authorizing the use of force against Taiwan [People’s Daily, 2005].

President Hu Jintao visited South Asian capitals in February 2005 but skipped Nepal. Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing visited Nepal March 31-April 1, 2005 when he described the king’s direct rule as Nepal’s “internal matter which has nothing to do with China. Nepali people have full authority to tackle their internal politics and development.” Li quoted the king as saying, “Nepal appreciates and supports the important role that China has been playing in the international affairs” [Xinhua, 2005]. China and Nepal also agreed to promote military cooperation. An agreement was signed on military cooperation under which China was to provide Nepal eight million yuan (Rs.72 million) to promote “stability, development and peace in Nepal” and “combat internal and external terrorism.” The Sino-Nepal military cooperation alarmed India.

Since the regime change in 2006, the Office of the Dalai Lama is back in business, as are pro-Tibet rallies. For example, in March 2007 a free-Tibet protest rally was held at Bouddha and Swayambhu, the two areas with a heavy concentration of Tibetan refugees, and a group set ablaze the Chinese national flag at Bhat Bhateni close to the Chinese Embassy. Celebrated Hollywood star Richard Gare, a well-known free-Tibet campaigner, addressed the Tibetan community to urge them to liberate Tibet. Then there was an American Everest Expedition, which demonstrated a banner urging solidarity for the "liberation" of Tibet. While the Nepal government has maintained a total silence on these developments, Chinese are worried by the changes and currently engaging major political parties.

Source: Telegraph Nepal, October 17, 2007