Politics stands still

Yubaraj Ghimire

As hopes fade of an early election that is free and fair, Nepal’s crisis shows no signs of abating. What can India do?

External recognition, it seems, is a much more important factor in Nepal’s politics than internal legitimacy. In October 2002, the international community including India, endorsed King Gyanendra when he sacked an elected prime minister for his failure to hold elections to Parliament on schedule. But in April 2006, the international community decisively rejected King Gyanendra’s complete takeover bid.

In fact, this turned into a major morale booster for the demoralised political parties that came together and mobilised people against the king. G.P. Koirala, who became prime minister after April 2006 following the success of that mass movement, is now fast losing crucial international support as he has missed two deadlines to hold elections to the Constituent Assembly (CA). Besides, the country’s law and order situation is in a shambles.

In the absence of an election in the near future, international support has become all the more crucial for Koirala’s survival. So long as key international players — India, US, China, European Union and United Nations — were agreed about assisting in charting out Nepal’s future political course (through the CA elections), things seemed to be moving in the right direction. But there are visible differences in the approach of international players towards Koirala’s failure to hold elections, though they are all clear that a fair and fearless election is urgent.

In the last few days, Koirala has intensified his meetings with diplomats, following Shyam Saran’s visit as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s special envoy, soon after the CA polls were postponed indefinitely. His advice was simple enough -- an early election, as early as December. But given Nepal’s poor law and order situation, it is hard to swallow. It also implies that the prime minister should be prepared to go for polls without the Maoists if they continued to insist on their ‘unreasonable demands’. Their new demand for abolition of the monarchy immediately and a complete switch to the proportional representation system of elections for the CA polls, barely a fortnight before the nomination process, was clearly intended to derail the entire election process.

Yet, going to the polls without the Maoists will minimise, to a large extent, the prospect of a foreseeable end to the 12-year old Maoist-led insurgency that has taken a toll of 13,000 lives. It’s equally challenging to hold them to their earlier pledge in Delhi, under a government initiative (in which Saran played the key role), that they would renounce the politics of violence and partake in competitive parliamentary politics. In the current context, however, it was as much a failure on the part of Indian government to not be able to assess that elections were not going to take place on November 22.

India’s Nepal policy seems to have failed. Similarly, there is a debate going on about whether the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN), headed by the Secretary General’s Special Representative Ian Martin, should be allowed to stay (with an enlarged mandate) beyond January 22, when its current tenure ends. While the government of Nepal is likely to write to the security council to have its tenure extended by another year, it is unlikely this will happen. UNMIN has been involving itself in Terai problems, where apart from peacefully agitating groups, more than a dozen armed groups, most of them based across the border, are demanding more political rights and inclusion in the decision making process.

India has backed the demands of the Terai groups, but the lack of consensus among the political parties in Nepal has delayed any action by the government. At the same time, China has been warning Nepal that the threat to the country’s stability because of the failure of the peace process will be a matter of special concern in the northern neighbourhood.

A delicate imbalance in the approach of the key international players, coupled with total domestic failure, has the potential to point Nepal in a new direction. But its destination is more confused than ever before.

Source: The Indian Express, October 30, 2007

Republican State And Democracy

Lakshman Bahadur K.C.

Modern states or govern ments have been classified under various forms such as monarchy, republican, dictatorship, democracy, unitary federal and presidential, parliamentary. It does not mean that the various forms of governments which are practised presently in various countries of the world are of recent origin. In fact, forms of government with different names have been in existence since the days of Aristotle in ancient Greece 2,500 years ago.

Classification of governments

Aristotle's classification of government has been considered as authoritative among the early classifications. In modern times, several eminent western political writers have made attempts to classify governments. Among them, Dr. Stephen Leacock's classification of governments has been accepted as being more comprehensive and the best.At first, Leacock divides states into two classes - despotic and democratic. Despotism is another name for dictatorship. In a despotic state, the ruler enjoys absolute and supreme power totally disregarding the wishes of the people. In a democracy, the sovereign power is vested in the general people who exercise it through their elected representatives in the parliament.He further subdivides democracies into limited monarchies and republics. In a limited monarchy, the monarch doesn't enjoy real political power.

He or she is just a nominal or ceremonial head. It is the elected parliament responsible to the people which exercises the real authority. In a republic state, it is the elected representatives headed by an elected president that govern the state for a fixed term.Each of these types of states is again subdivided into unitary and federal forms of government on the basis of concentration on the distribution of powers. In a unitary state, power is concentrated in the central government whereas in a federal state, the government's powers are divided between the centre and the units. The federal system is based on the concept of a dual set of government.The unitary and federal states are further subdivided into parliamentary and presidential forms of government on the basis of relationship between the legislature and executive. In the parliamentary form of government, the executive headed by the prime minister is responsible to the legislature. The head of state (a monarch or president) has only a nominal authority in such a system. Whereas in the presidential form of government, which is based on the doctrine of the separation of power, the chief executive, i.e., the president is not responsible to the legislature and is independent of it though the president may be removed by the process of impeachment.

Thus, we can put the formal classification of governments into broad categories as monarchy, dictatorship and democracy and their subsidiary forms like constitutional monarchy, republics, unitary and federal, parliamentary and presidential governments or a mixture of them. Any form of government may be practised on the basis of the political requirement of the country. No form of government, therefore, can be described as pure or exclusive as well as static.The political system of a country represents harmonisation of the different forms of government. For example, the political system of Great Britain is based on the concept of constitutional monarchy, unitary and parliamentary democracy.

On the other hand, India is a republic and a federal state. It has an elected president with functioning parliamentary democracy under the leadership of an elected prime minister, whereas the USA is a federal republic and democratic state with a presidential form of government, which is based on the doctrine of separation of powers.Another form of government is monarchy. It is the oldest form of government and is prevalent in several states of the world. In fact, the monarchial system having hereditary succession symbolises autocracy, feudalism and exploitation. But with the growth of democracy, which is based on the universal concept of liberty, equality, fraternity and welfare state, the system of absolute monarchy declined in modern times and was replaced by the republican state. But some European countries like Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands have retained the monarchial system as ceremonial heads under a democratic set up.Thus, we find that several countries of the world have removed monarchical system and established a republican system through violent political change. The republican state is now the prevalent system around the world. But the establishment of republicanism does not automatically usher in plural democracy. Republicanism is practised with different forms of government with or without plural democracy.

There are several countries which have adopted the republican concept with different principles of state governance. Just take the example of Korea. The divided Korea - North and South - though they are republican states, the principle of governance for their respective countries is fundamentally different from one another. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North) is governed by a single party ideology of communism whereas the political system of the Republic of Korea (South) is based on the concept of plural democracy with presidential form of government. The president in South Korea is elected by the people in free and fair democratic competitive elections.There is also another form of republican state, which is related to religion and the army doctrine.

For example, Iran proclaims itself an Islamic republic, which means its whole system is guided by Islamic law. In the case of Iraq, it was ruled by military dictator Saddam Hussein for a long time though it was a republican state. Thus, several countries practise dictatorship under the banner of a republican state. The establishment of a republic state is, therefore, no guarantee that multiparty democracy would be established unless it is backed by full commitment to the functioning of constitutional democracy based on the rule of law, periodic competitive elections among the political parties, liberty, equality, fraternity and a welfare state.Nepal is now on the verge of great political change. The successful popular uprising of April 2006 in which millions of people had participated against the autocratic royal regime under the leadership of the seven party alliance and the CPN Maoist opened the door for a change of great magnitude in the political, social and economic fields.With the introduction of the interim constitution 2063 B.S., an interim government and an interim legislature, the Nepalese people have now started to experience a new wave of political change.

One of the basic features of this change is that Nepal is positively heading towards the achievement of new multiparty democracy based on the concept of federal republic with the aim of ending the centralised feudal monarchical system. But Nepal's march towards establishing a new Nepal through state restructuring and creating a new political set up based on political pluralism, rule of law, inclusiveness, fundamental rights, freedom of the judiciary and the press and the welfare state cannot be materialised unless and until we sincerely realise the imperative of framing and introducing a new and stable constitution by the elected Constitution Assembly.The constitution of the elected Constitution Assembly will certainly be a major and historical step towards institutionalising the achievements of the April movement and ending the political transition of Nepal, which will guide the new political set up based on democratic values.

But contrary to the arrangement as provided in the interim constitution 2063 for holding the Constitution Assembly elections, the postponement of the CA polls twice has raised doubts about the sincerity of the political stakeholders of the present political set up. The postponement of the CA polls due to the controversy raised by the CPN Maoist leaders on the methods of the CA polls at a time when the CA polls were scheduled to be held on November 22 is itself a breach of the provisions of the interim constitution, which is a common and legal document of the eight political parties.LegitimacyThus, inability to hold the Constitution Assembly elections means maintaining the status quo and prolonging the transition period, which is definitely not in the interest of Nepal and the Nepalese people. So without wasting time, the political parties and their leaders must come forward to create a conducive environment throughout the country for holding the CA polls successfully and peacefully within this year, otherwise the legitimacy of the present interim set up will be questioned.

Source: The Rising Nepal, October 31, 2007

Nepal needs a close look

Ashok K Mehta

In the case of Nepal, historically India's foreign policy has been driven by its security concerns, but the policy planning has been patchy. Cognisance is still taken of a British foreign policy document as old as 1919, which noted: "Nepal is in a position to exercise powerful influence over India's internal stability and if it were to become disaffected, the anarchy would spill over...."
The 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship (TPF), together with the accompanying letter which is derived from the 1923 security treaty Nepal signed with Britain, has provisions impacting on mutual security concerns: "Neither country will tolerate threat to the other... devise effective countermeasures..."

In 1959, Jawaharlal Nehru equated aggression on Nepal or Bhutan with aggression on India. This resulted in a furore in Nepal for being bracketed with Bhutan. While BP Koirala welcomed Nehru's security commitment, he asserted Nepal's independence. Nepal takes pride in its independence, being the only country other than Bhutan and Thailand in the region not to be colonised, but it paid a different price for it.

India has been associated directly with all the major changes in Nepal starting with the overthrow of the Ranas in 1950, advent of multi-party democracy in 1959, restoration of democracy in 1990 and the virtual end of monarchy in 2006. Two companies of Indian Infantry were poised to land in Kathmandu in 1950 in case there was "anarchy", but the force was not needed. In 1959, during Nepal's first multi-party election, Indian Army Gorkha signallers were deployed for communications.

The military-to-military connection between the two Armies is also historic. In 1952, King Tribhuvan requested for an Indian military mission to train the Royal Nepal Army (RNA). In 1960, 21 border checkposts were established in the north with Indian security personnel. In 1965, King Mahendra requested India for reorganising and re-equipping the Army. In 1970, on Nepal's request both the checkposts and training teams were withdrawn but the military cooperation continued unabated without any physical presence of Indian Army trainers. The special military relationship was symbolised by the Army Chiefs of the two countries being made honorary Generals of each other's Armies.

The bulk of Army training is handled by India under the special aided programme of the MoD and maximum training vacancies on training courses go to Nepal and Sri Lanka. In 1990, after the restoration of democracy, yet another request was made to modernise the Nepal Army and that programme is still going on. At the height of Maoist insurgency, when the Army was under pressure and ill-prepared to meet the Maoist challenge, Indian Army's counter-insurgency experts trained and guided the Nepal Army to defeat the Maoists. Massive contingents of equipment were rushed to ensure military posts were defensible.

In 2003, for the first time after 1970, a Bilateral Security Consultative Group was established for channelling equipment and expertise to Nepal Army. The military assistance was provided on specific request from the Government of Nepal in the spirit of past agreements and understandings. In 2004, when the Maoists besieged the Kathmandu Valley for a week, the Directors General Military Operations consulted each other on possible help that India could provide. National Security Adviser JN Dixit held a special meeting with the Indian Army and Air Force Chiefs to evolve contingency plans in case of any adverse situation.

Contingency planning is at the core of national security; it includes humanitarian and military assistance requested by friendly countries. India is guided by treaty obligations and security commitments in the neighbourhood. It dispatched the IPKF to Sri Lanka following a request made by President JR Jayewardene after the India-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987. Similarly, the Government of Maldives asked for -- and received -- military assistance to defeat a serious mercenary threat.

India has either planned or dispatched military succour to Seychelles, Mauritius and Fiji. It has repeatedly stated that it is committed to the "sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka", which is diplomatese for deterring the LTTE from a military takeover of the north-east or declaring the Eelam. The ISLA of 1987, like the 1950 TPF, is still in place, though both are dated.

Like the Southern Command in Pune is responsible for contingency planning and tasks in the island countries like Sri Lanka and the Maldives, Lucknow's Central Command has for long been involved in planning possible missions in the north, including Nepal. Military training institutions and think tanks are forever wargaming scenarios in the region so that, unlike their political masters, they are not caught napping. Exercise Tribhuvan was a study carried out in the late 1970s to assess the possibilities of a Communist takeover of Nepal. Shades of what is being currently played out by the Maoists and their associates in Kathmandu and the countryside were reflected in the exercise.

Over the years, India's security concerns were focussed on the activities of the ISI in Nepal, culminating in the hijack of IC-814 in Kandahar. The raid on the ISI stronghold by Nepal Police in Kathmandu's Hotel Karnali in 1994 revealed the scale of Pakistan's anti-India activities, but Kathmandu chose to deny most of it till the Kandahar episode. Nepal's sensitivity about its sovereignty and territorial integrity is manifest in the ladder-point security check of Indian Airlines flights at Tribhuvan Airport. Indian security staff frisk passengers on an elevated platform, avoiding use of Nepalese soil.

In the early 1990s, the first GP Koirala Government requested New Delhi for help to search for survivors of two major air crashes in the Valley. Nepali media ran banner headlines: "IAF helicopters invade Nepali airspace..." The Madhuri Dixit and Hrithik Roshan non-incidents created an avoidable anti-Indian stir in Nepal. Many Nepali friends say India is hypersensitive to anti-India sentiments which are dutifully shed by Nepalis before crossing the open border with India. They ask: "How can India become a regional -- leave alone an Asian -- power, if it loses sleep over such incidents?"

Leaders of the Seven-Party Alliance are privately, and some even publicly, saying that Maoists are afraid of facing an election; and, their hardliners could be preparing for a power grab. The Maoists have consistently accused royalists of conspiring against the "people's revolution" and the Army of planning a coup. These may not happen but are all part of future scenarios which warrant contingency plans.

The Maoists have the capability and the hardliners the intent to skirt the electoral process and seize power. India does not have to be apologetic about voicing its security concerns and priorities in Nepal and taking necessary action in shaping the environment. Moreover, being prepared for the unexpected, the political class would then no longer be equated with "headless chickens". National interest might prevail over political survival.

Source: The Pioneer, October 31, 2007

MUSLIMS of NEPAL: Becoming an assertive minority

R. Upadhyay


Hindu Monarchy with Hinduism as State religion ruled Nepal for centuries. The system of governance was also based on Hindu scriptures. As Buddhism was accepted as a part of Hindu society, the followers of this religion had no problem in the kingdom. But Muslims, the third religious group in the kingdom was allowed to practice their faith under certain restrictions. They were debarred from propagation of Islam or to follow the Islamic code Shariat in respect of dissolution of marriage by oral pronouncement of the word 'Talaq' thrice. In case of inheritance also they were to follow the Hindu-scriptures based code of Nepal. Any violation of Hindu scriptures based Nepal Code was a punishable offence. The situation therefore, was not congenial for the Islamic community to settle there. Even during Muslim rule in India Muslim migration to this country was insignificant. Perhaps strict implementation of Hindu scriptures based code was the main reason behind the indifference of the community towards settling in Nepal. In spite of such restrictions, it is unusual for the Muslims to become a significant third religious group in this Hindu kingdom.
The study of the religion-political sociology of the Muslims of South Asia has been the hot subject for historians for over last two decades but its scope in the Hindu Kingdom of Nepal is found to be proportionately minimal. Historically, it is difficult to come to any definite conclusion on the issue of migration but some reports suggest that Bakhtiyalr Khilji invaded Tibet in 13th century and some of its soldiers sneaked into Nepal. Another report says that first arrival of Muslims in Kathmandu valley was in late fifteenth and early sixteenth century during the reign of Ratna Malla, when Kashmiri traders from Tibet came here via Tibet for their trade in carpets, rugs and woolen garments. Soon after them some bangle sellers locally known as Churaute also arrived in the valley. It is also said that the rulers of Nepal invited a few dozens of Muslim army personnel from neighbouring Indian Territory to train the soldiers in fire arms. The Muslim rulers could not annex Nepal due to the fighting capability of Gurkhas. Shamsuddin Ilyas, Muslim ruler of Bengal had raided the Kathmandu valley in 1349 but returned without success.
Major penetration of Muslims in Nepal was in its Terai region during and after Sepoy mutiny of 1857. Jung Bahadur, the first Rana Prime Minister was the ally of the British but he gave protection and shelter to the Begum of Oudh . This was not possible without the consent of the British. It was a deliberate political move of the British to keep away the Muslim ruling family from its Indian Territory to avoid any mobilisation of Muslim masses around it. Knowing about the migration of the Begum, the Muslims from the border area also started migrating to the Terai region. They were mostly farm labour and small traders. British atrocities in the Ganges valley forced them to flee to the Terai region of Nepal to save their lives. The Hindu landlords were in need of the farm labour for cultivation and the rulers of the kingdom interested for more revenue from agricultural produce, placed no restriction for such migration of the Muslims. However, there was no relaxation in 1853 Code for the migrant Muslims. The descendants of the Muslims settled in the hills still constitute only 3 % of the total Muslim population of Nepal. Rest of 97 % is settled in Terai region mostly bordering India along Bihar and U.P.
Although Muslim conquest of northern India had undermined the centuries old rigid anti-Muslim policy in the kingdom to some extent, the sliding decline of Mogul Empire prompted successive rulers to maintain its Hindu character. Prithvi Narayan Shah during his regime (1743-1775) unified various independent hill kingdoms into modern Nepal. A few months before his death in 1775 he recorded the 'Divya Sandesh' (Divine message), which was a part of the guiding principles for state administration. In his divine message he "had envisaged his kingdom as a land of Hindus, contrasting with 'Mughlana' (India), the land polluted by the rule of the Mughals and their successors". (A History of Nepal by John Helpton, Cambridge, 2005, page 56). This contemptuous language about India because of Muslim-rule over it remained a permanent mental load of Nepali masses. India was known as Moghalan as a common language of Nepalese. It is said that the people of Nepal made it a custom not to drive out the cow, the national animal from their field in south direction to stop its entry in Moghlana, where there was no state restriction on cow-slaughter.
Jang Bahadur, the first Rana Prime Minister in the kingdom expanded the 'Divya Sandesh' and framed 'Mulki Ain' (Law of the Land) 1853 for strict implementation of the caste order based on Hindu social code, which listed the Muslims in the category of impure and untouchables. In fact the people of Nepal tolerated the Muslims known as 'Mlechchhas' (barbarians) with restrictions to the extent that only "raw and dry eatables" were acceptable from their hands. (Article of Marc Gaborieau 1972 in 'Muslim community of South Asia', Edited by T.N.Madan, Manohar, 2001, page 209.).
The Muslims of Nepal strictly followed the Nepal Code of 1853 and accepted their lower social status as loyal citizens and accordingly maintained a very low and profile under the Hindu Monarchy system of governance. It may be interesting to note that even after their long presence in Nepal during the monarchy there was hardly any significant communal problem in the kingdom. Living in Hindu scriptures-based cultural milieu and related social environment for centuries they accepted the situation as it was.
The end of Rana regime in 1951 and establishment of Monarchy-led multi-party coalition government hardly made any change in the social status of the Muslims. The situation more or less remained the same even after 1959 promulgation of constitution and the formation of democratically elected government with B.P. Koirala as Prime Minister. In 1960 King Mahendra dismissed this government and introduced Monarchy-led party less Panchayat system. He replaced the 1853 Code new Code in1963, which provided equal citizen status to the Muslims. Although, the new Code allowed the Muslims to practice their religion freely, the ban on conversion or dissolution of marriage etc remained as it was in 1853 Code. Any attempt to convert people remained a punishable offence with three-year imprisonment. The King however, nominated one Muslim in his National Panchayat and there was no restriction on opening of madrassas.
Even though the 1963 code did not alter the social status of the Muslims it opened a floodgate for the various Ismamist groups from across the boarder to expand their activities in Nepal. With the support of the ISI and financial support from Muslim world there was a speedy growth of madrassas and mosques in both sides of 1751 k.m. Indo-Nepal boarder particularly along the Indian states of U.P. and Bihar.
Some reports suggest that the ISI of Pakistan with a view to make Nepal its hide out for exporting terrorism to India also financed some NGOs to bring demographic imbalance in Terai region by infiltration of Bangladeshi Muslims. The report said, "The official figures show that the strength of the Muslim community in Nepal has grown from 2% of the population in 1981 to 3.5 in 1991. Data compiled by the Nepalese Election Commission in connection with the recent general elections indicates that this figure could now have crossed 5% and more even be close to 10%. Steady migration of Bangladesh Muslims to the Terai considerably contributed to this increase". (India Today, June 12, 2000). Today there are 300 madrassas and 343 mosques within 10 k.m. of the boarder in Indian side while 181 madrassas and 282 mosques are in Nepal side. (Dastider). It is said that the Islamist world is quite liberal in financing the NGOs to the insidious growth of the Islamist fundamentalist net work in Nepal.
As per 1991 Census Report Muslims constitutes 3.4 % of the total population of Nepal, though the figure claimed by the Muslim organisations of the country is between 8 to 10 %. (The figure is based on the source: HMG, CBS, Population monograph, Kathmandu, 1994 as quoted in Understanding Nepal by Mollica Dastider, Har-Anand Publication, 2007, page80).
Since the government of Nepal did not contest such claim of the Muslim organisations, the figure of 10% appears to be nearer to the factual position. The ethnic structure of Terai region as suggested by Dastider also corroborates it. Today four districts of Terai namely Banke, Kapilbastu, Parsa and Rautahat with over fifty percent of Muslim population are now Muslim-majority districts. In five districts namely, Bara, Mahottari, Dhanusha, Sirha and Sunsari Muslims are the second religious majority and in two districts namely Rupandehi and Sarlahi they constitute as a significantly third religious group.
Whatever may be the correct figure of Mislims in Nepal, it is something amazing to see how this significant followers of Islam compromised with anti-Shariat (Islamic laws) un-Islamic Hindu environment and lived there peacefully for centuries. Socio-political scientists might have their own analysis but it gives credence to some views that Shariat could be made flexible if it serves the interest of political Islamists.
By and large Muslims of Nepal had a feeling of better security of their life and properties under the Monarchy led party-less Panchayat system in comparison to their counterparts in secular and multi-party democratic India. They apprehended that Hindu-majority parliamentary rule would endanger even their present identity. Such feeling made them complacent and accordingly, their participation in the pro-democracy movement of early 1990 was minimal. However, taking advantage of the democratic movement some of the fundamentalist organisations like Millat-e-Islamia and Muslim Seva Samiti were found expressing concern over the state sponsored drive for Nepalisation of the people. The Muslim youths took this move as Hinduisation of Muslims.
Political transformation of Nepal from absolute Hindu monarchy to multi-party parliamentary democracy in 1990 was a landmark development in the history of the kingdom. The interim constitution declared Nepal as a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, democratic, independent, indivisible, sovereign Hindu and constitutional monarchial kingdom. It also said, "The state shall not discriminate among citizens on grounds of religion, race, sex, caste, tribe or ideological conviction or any of these".
The end of political discrimination among the citizens on the ground of religion prompted 31 Muslim leaders to contest in the first general election in 1991 after the promulgation of interim constitution from different parties and five of them got elected including three from Nepali Congress and one each from Communist Party of Nepal and Sadbhavana Party. Sheikh Idris of Nepali Congress was also included in the cabinet.
The sudden rise in political profile of the Muslims not only boosted the morale of this centuries old suppressed community but also provided them an opportunity to raise an assertive voice for sharing political and administrative power. Accordingly they raised demands like 10% reservation in constituent assemblies, reserved seats in Parliament and government holidays on Muslim festival. Similarly the radical Islamists also became active to spread their net work in the kingdom to assertively fight for their separate identity. Immediately after the promulgation of interim constitution, the Imam of the Jama Masjid of Kathmandu led a delegation and submitted a 14-points charter of demands to the then Prime Minister K.P.Bhattarai.
Although Muslims were not fully satisfied due to Hindu character of the interim constitution, they had no problem in their socio-political and religious activities. Muslim organisations like Islami Yuva Sangh, Millate Islamia and Ittehadul Muslimeen, which were operating as socio-religious organisations became aggressive in challenging their centuries old subordinate status. This led to communal conflict in some of the Terai regions, where Muslims are in competitive strength.
Spread of the network of Islamist terrorists in post-1990 Nepal became a security problem for India. The infamous hijacking of IC- 184 from the capital of the kingdom in early 2000 suggested that political transformation made this country a safe hide out for the Jehadis to export terrorism in India. ISI might have masterminded this operation but was it possible without the support of local Islamists? According to a report a Nepali national Nayeem Shah arrested in Kathmandu in 1998 for possession of fake Indian currency of 3.5 lakh disclosed that the notes were given to him by Nepalese politician Mirza Dilshad Beg before his assassination. On November 4, 2006, India's Union Home Minister of State Sriprakash Jaiswal said Pakistani Militants had found safe hide-outs In Nepal …"(Outlook.com, November 20, 2006).
The Interim Parliament declared Nepal as a secular state on May 18, 2006, which was incorporated in the interim constitution on May 2007. It says, "Nepal is an independent, invisible, sovereign, secular, inclusive and fully democratic state". Constituent Assembly is to approve this interim constitution after its election in November this year.
How far the Muslim masses of Nepal would integrate in the national mainstream and join the nation building programme under a new political environment only time will say but if the Islamists are not kept under check and political parties imitate the vote-seeking politics of their Indian counterparts, they will remain as backward as they were for centuries. The growth of madrassas in stead of schools for modern education and wide network of Islamist terrorists would only add to their misery. Mushroom growth of Islamic organizations having links with the Radical Islamists of the world has not only become the concern of the people of Nepal but it is also a security risk for India.
On September 1, 2004, thousands of demonstrators stormed the main mosque in Kathmandu, the capital of Nepal, sets furniture and carpet on fire, tore up a copy of Quran and chanted "Down with Islam'. They were protesting against the killing of 12 Nepalese labourers in Iraq. Police had to open fire to control the crowd. The incident was a signal for the future relation between Hindu and Muslims of the country, who were living peacefully for centuries.


Source: Ocotber 4, 2007

China’s New Assertiveness in Nepal

Bhaskar Roy

In an interview (June 17) to the publication “Nepal” the new China Ambassador to Nepal, Zheng Xialing, said “China shall not tolerate any foreign intervention in Nepal”. Ambassador Zheng explained, “Whenever the Nepali people face any problem or difficulty, China shall treat them as our own especially when the problems pertain to sovereignty or territorial integrity (emphasis added).

A reading of the text of the interview leaves no doubt that it was carefully prepared in advance by the interviewer and the Chinese Embassy in Kathmandu to convey certain messages to India and, also, apparently to the USA. For example, the interviewer recalled Chinese Vice Premier Marshall Chen Yi had said China would not tolerate foreign interference in Nepal, and asked whether that policy had changed.

Other important questions included China’s concerns on Free Tibet campaigners’ activities in Nepal, acceptance of Nepal as a republic and US views of Maoists as terrorists. This interview can be considered as glimpses into China’s readjusted foreign policy towards Nepal after the fall of King Gyanendra and the monarchy. Zheng Xialing’s observations are not idle statements of a senior diplomat, but highly significant and meaningful.

Nepal has been one of the important elements in China’s Indo-Himalayan strategy to ultimately push the de facto Sino-Indian border from Kashmir to Bhutan closer to India’s heartland. Nepal is one of the “five-fingers” strategy of late Mao Zedong. It spells Beijing’s influence and control over Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Arunachal Pradesh. To the “five fingers”, there are indications that a “toe” is being added. Some of the Tibetans who have been won over by the Chinese are locating along the Indo-Himalayan belt from Ladakh to Sikkim. Kathmandu is one of the very important centers for meetings between China operatives and their Tibetan contacts from India.

Returning to Ambassador Zheng Xialing’s assurance to protect Nepal’s sovereignty and territorial integrity including from foreign intervention in Nepal, the hardline from Beijing is unmistakable. To this was the added reference to Marshall Chen Yi’s similar statement of assurance in 1962.

Reference to 1962 is of particular importance. The Chinese propaganda machinery frequently claims that India’s “illegal” incursion deeper into Chinese territory was dealt a humiliating blow by the Chinese army, the PLA. In the context of Nepal, Zheng’s statements, obviously cleared by Beijing, does border on not so camouflaged warning to India over Nepal’s affairs.

There is a territorial problem between India and Nepal over Kalapani, which is with India. The matter was thought to have been a settled issue, till Chinese President Jiang Zemin reportedly encouraged the Nepalese governement and Palace to reopen the issue during his official visit to Kathmandu in December, 1996. Almost immediately following President Jiang’s visit the Nepalese reopened the issue with India both officially and through public protests. According to reports, the Kalapani issue has not gone away and friendly Chinese delegations visiting Nepal allegedly remind the Nepalese periodically. The policy is to keep the fire burning slowly till the time comes to raise the intensity and get it raging.

Nepal had three main pillars, and a fourth one was growing. Beijing nurtured all the three i.e. the Palace, the Royal Nepalese Army (now Nepalese Army), and the Nepali Congress (NC). Given the historic importance of the monarchy, especially the belief among the common people that the king is the reincarnation of the God Vishnu on earth, the Palace was Beijing’s first choice for friendship. The army leadership was with the Palace and, hence, scripted for Chinese coalition. The NC was a different issue, with its traditional linkages with India, but NC leaders tried to maintain a balance between Beijing and New Delhi. The CPN (UML), among the left parties became particularly close to the Chinese. The CPN (Maoist) had a problem, having gone underground, fighting the monarchy from 1990. That, however, does not mean the Chinese Embassy in Kathmandu did not have any contact with the Maoists. They did, but very carefully.
During the people’s uprising led by the Maoists from 2000, Beijing made a strategic policy mistake, something uncharacteristic for them. They believed the Palace with the army would prevail again, and remained openly pro-Palace. But unlike India, China had already set up some controlled institutions in the country through their old friends, but fully controlled by Beijing through their embassy in Kathmandu.

The Nepal – China Study Centers (NCSC) and fully funded by China and locally supervised by Madhav Nepal, CPN (UML) leader. While the head office of NCSC in located in Kathmandu, the branch offices numbering now more than seven are located close to the Indian border. These centers are involved in anti-India influence peddling, collection of information, promoting China etc. But the NCSC members can be much more damaging. Their potential to create mischief in the Terai region is enormous, and they can remain undetected. The Terai region is already restive, with no united stand even among the Madhesis.

Another Chinese institution is Nepal-China Mutual Co-operation Society (NCMCS). Again funded through the Chinese Embassy, the co-ordination has been entrusted to Prof. Ballab Mani Dahal. The main task of the NCMCS is to promote China and denigrate India and other US as colonialists and exploiters.

The perception in India that it has come up on top in Nepal is all very well. Maoist supremo Prachanda is on record to thank India for its support to the anti-monarchy movement. India is also mediating in the political crises in Nepal, which would be construed in China’s strategic calculations as “intervention”. This is exactly what Ambassador Zheng said in his interview that China would not allow in Nepal.

During the end months of turmoil and the initial stages of return of democracy, China decided to allow India to take the front position. China was in no position to put its foot in the swirling political waters in Nepal. It decided to nourish its constituencies, including firming a better relationship with the Maoists. This is expected to be a totally new relationship.

The China-Nepal railway in the making needs to be viewed in terms of a new strategic advantage for China. The railway project should be operational next year, providing greater connectivity both for passengers and goods between the two countries. It would be a handle for the anti-India Nepalese factions, and would erode to some extant Nepal’s total dependence on India for access to sea ports, notwithstanding the cost difference. It may also be kept in mind China is always capable of providing “friendship” prices to “friends”.

The new political crises in Nepal with the indefinite postponement of the Constituent Assembly (CA) polls for a second time on October 5 could create a fertile ground for Chinese covert intervention. China’s friends, the CPN (UML) and the Nepal Majdoor Kisan Party (NMKP) opposed the postponement of the polls, thus dividing the original seven party coalition. The Maoists reneged on the earlier agreement, demanding the country be declared a republic before the CA elections. The reunited NC is sitting rather ineptly in the middle without taking a firm position. Under these conditions India’s leading role in Kathmandu to bring about a reconciliation and emerge as the chief arbitrator in Nepal’s politics goes against Chinese strategic interests.
Ambassador Zheng’s interview portends not only China’s hard-line policy in Nepal vis-à-vis India, but this is likely to extend in their policies to other countries in South Asia to further compress India in its immediate neighborhood. An inimical neighborhood would hamper India’s development and some of the countries of South Asia may be more than willing to play China’s game. It appears a major foreign policy challenge is coming up. It will not do to sweep things under the carpet. The issue will be too big to hide anywhere. The only answer can be a proactive foreign policy.

Source: South Asian Analysis Group, October 8, 2007