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

No respite in violence

Paul Soren

With the election date coming nearer, violence between the parties has witnessed a steady rise, especially in the eastern and Terai region, threatening the electoral process itself. The government claims to have tightened the security situation but there are no signs of it on the ground. Even the political parties, the Election Commission (EC), international observers, civil society and members of the international community have expressed concern over the rising violence. The EC discussed the issue with senior leaders of the three major parties; Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala, Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (UML) general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal and Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-Maoist) chairman Prachanda. The commission urged the leaders to refrain from violating the code of conduct. The commission warned of serious consequences if the elections were to be deferred due to violence. The leaders assured their cooperation for holding the elections peacefully. They signed a 10-point agreement on April 1 to abide by the code of conduct and restrain from making provocative statements. They directed their cadres to refrain from anti-election activities. They formed a committee comprising members from civil society to monitor incidents of violence and violations of code of conduct. A three-member task force has also been formed with leaders from the three parties to oversee the implementation of the new agreement.

But there are already visible signs that despite such assurances, there is no sign of the party workers adhering to the code of conduct. The newly-formed civil society committee and the task force failed to prevent the Maoists- affiliated Young Communist League (YCL) cadres from openly flouting the code of conduct and preventing other parties from holding election campaign in their strongholds. Interestingly, the UML and NC cadres are also toeing the YCL line. Besides, some armed groups in the Terai are out to sabotage the election process. Repeated incidents of blasts inside a mosque premises in Biratnagar and serial blasts in Kathmandu on April 5 are indications of a worsening law and order situation merely five days before the elections.

Source: South Asia Weekly Assessment, ORF, April 8, 2008

Fate of monarchy linked to Nepal's poll

Dhruba Adhikary

KATHMANDU - Nepal on Monday appeared like a country finally heading towards an election of historical significance later this week. There is visible enthusiasm among voters - an atmosphere that was not to be found a week ago when candidates in the 601-strong Constituent Assembly conducted their campaigns amid fear and insecurity. Just days ago, uncertainty surrounded the poll, which is expected to pave the way for the Himalayan kingdom's transformation into a republic. After two postponements since last June, the interim government finally approved a date, April 10, and directed the Election Commission to make necessary preparations. Thousands of poll observers, including from Western countries, will be closely watching the voting for which over 17 million Nepalis are eligible. There are about nine thousand candidates for the election - to be based on a mixed system of first-past-the-post and proportional representation.

The men and women contesting the elections have had differing experiences, from disinterested crowds to candidates in far-flung districts being killed, abducted and intimidated, mainly by young militants associated with the Maoists. In April 2006, the Maoists agreed to be a political party - the Communist Party of Nepal - and joined electoral and competitive politics. The Maoists continue to draw widespread criticism for their cadres' crude and deadly behavior, ignoring their pledge to abide by provisions of the peace accord they signed to formally end a 10-year armed insurgency which claimed over 13,000 lives. Villagers in remote areas have complained that Maoist cadres routinely visit them and threaten retribution if they do not vote for their candidates and parties. Maoist cadres have made hundreds of villages inaccessible to other parties, forcing them to confine their campaigns to district centers. Responding to these complaints, the top Maoist leader publicly issued a directive for his group to behave like Indian non-violent spiritual leader Mahatma Gandhi for the remaining days of the campaign. His cadres at the village level, however, do not appear to have been paying attention.

Threats and hurdles

What happened on March 29 in Biraatnagar, the home town of interim Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala located in the southeast, provided an example of how precarious the law and order situation is across Nepal. Within hours after Koirala addressing local authorities on enhancing security services in the region, powerful bombs exploded at a neighborhood mosque, instantly killing two persons and inflicting serious injuries on others. The incident added a communal dimension to the existing problems in the Hindu-majority country. In its pre-election report issued on April 6, the special United Nations mission in Nepal alluded to a "climate of fear in which candidates and voters function". While appreciating pledges by leaders of three parties - among the seven political parties in the interim alliance - to conduct the campaign in a peaceful manner, the UN report continued to express frustration, saying that "these commitments need to translate into reality on the ground - which has too often not been the case". As if to prove this perception, Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal (also known as Prachanda) last week canceled all of his public engagements outside the capital for security reasons.

Ironically, he is also the head of the "People's Liberation Army" and is usually surrounded by scores of armed personnel around the clock. It is odd to see the Maoist leadership scared to move around in a country in which they say is 80% under their control. "Death has come to haunt its greatest purveyor," wrote a newspaper columnist. Prachanda's decision came in the wake of threats from some two dozen armed groups in the Terai region, mainly bordering the Indian state of Bihar, which have said they would disrupt the April 10 polls by "eliminating" candidates. Some of these groups are said to have political agendas and demands that their regions be declared autonomous with a right to self-determination. It is a widely held belief that New Delhi is behind this separatist movement. Meanwhile, political rivalry between the main contesting parties remains acrimonious.

Both the Maoists and the Communist Party of Nepal (UML), the more moderate of the two, depict the Nepali Congress, the party with centrist credentials, as a supporter of the status quo (meaning support for the monarchy) , even if the Congress leadership has agreed to their republican agenda. The Congress sees the Maoists as a party of anarchists. But the dual between the UML and the Maoists has been strikingly bitter, with each accusing the other of being royalist. Nobody knows what Gyanendra, whose days even as a "suspended" king are numbered, would have said about these verbal battles. But is Gyanendra still in a position to move or shake Nepal's political course at this decisive phase? Apparently not.

The country's army has ceased to be "royal" and there are no other visible domestic forces to salvage the monarchy, even in a ceremonial form. Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, a former prime minister and Koirala's rival while he was still in the Nepali Congress, is the only political personality of any standing to say that the monarchy is still needed. But since Bhattarai is no longer politically active, it is unlikely his statements will make any direct impact on the ongoing political process. Two of the 54 political parties in the fray have said openly they are in favor of a ceremonial monarchy. One of them is the Nepal National Development Party, which is headed by a Nepali citizen of Japanese origin, Takashi Miyahara. He thinks Nepal can take Japan as a role model and stresses that people forgave their emperor despite the loss of 2 million lives during World War II.

Some of the world's top 10 countries, he contends, are monarchies, such as Japan and in Scandinavia. Gyanendra has publicly said he has no plans to leave Nepal. Instead, the palace last week sent out customary cards with New Year's greetings from "Their Majesties the King and Queen". Nepal's new year, 2065, begins on April 13. Nepal's interim constitution and concomitant agreements between the seven political parties that make up the ruling coalition stipulate that the first meeting of the newly-elected assembly will "implement" a proposal to declare Nepal a republic. And the assembly has to meet for its maiden session within 21 days after the announcement of the last election result.

In election commissioner Neelkantha Upreti's estimation, all results will be out within three weeks of the poll, provided no re-polls are required. In other words, the 240-year-old monarchy which has remained a symbol of Nepal's stability will be relegated to the history books in a matter of weeks. Will Gyanendra quietly wait for that day without making a final attempt, be it overt or covert, to save his throne? Some politicians in the coalition have said they suspect the palace is behind the recent spate of violence. In private conversations, very few prominent politicians, including the Maoists, see the monarchy disappearing easily. They know they themselves are primarily responsible for the anarchy and chaos the country has witnessed since the successful pro-democracy movement of April 2006.

They are also aware they have alienated a large section of the population by declaring Nepal a secular state without putting the issue to a popular test. Similarly, leaders in the coalition hurriedly pushed through a citizenship law in the interim legislature, subsequently granting Nepali citizenship to about 4 million aliens, mainly Indians. Even the Maoists, who always claimed to be more nationalist than others, did not raise any objection while the "liberal" law was being enacted. "Maoists, too, showed that they are no different from others when it comes to vying for New Delhi's favor," said Somnath Ghimire, editor of Yugsambad, a Nepali language weekly. Widespread fear and indifference could lead to an unexpectedly low turnout of voters, with some estimates claiming it could be as low as 25%.

In the absence of a law requiring a minimum percentage of voters, even such an election could be declared valid by Nepal's election officials and endorsed by international observers. But will it achieve the political legitimacy needed to complete the current transitional process? This is a question that might be asked, among others, by Gyanendra, who earlier told the media the people alone had the right to decide the fate of the monarchy. Additionally, it is as yet unclear which of three main parties is likely to emerge as the winner. Some analysts say that despite splits and mergers, the Nepali Congress stands a chance to lead the other parties. Others believe the UML has brighter prospects.

The Maoists are not being viewed as the main winners. However, this is a prediction the Maoist leadership refuses to accept. Prachanda has publicly thundered that the Maoists will not accept the results if his party is denied victory, and thereby a chance to introduce revolutionary reforms. According to Prachanda, his party will take such a result as a conspiracy, compelling it to restart the armed insurgency. One senior Nepali Congress leader told Asia Times Online that the Maoists want to be in a win-win situation - either winning the majority and accomplishing the dream of "taking over" the country, or staying out of election without being seen as the main villain. Worrying trendsInstitutions tasked with analyzing emerging trends have made no secret of their concern. The latest report by the International Crisis Group predicts the post-poll period will be more "difficult and dangerous". In the words of the group's Asia program director, Robert Templer, "The turbulent aftermath would require cooperation and forward planning from the main parties." Will that be forthcoming if the Maoists decide to reject a defeating poll verdict and boycott the elected assembly thereafter? Recent events in Kenya and Zimbabwe do not offer encouraging messages. One school of thought has it that while communist slogans may be attractive to poor, illiterate and credulous people, the West-dominated international community would hate to see - or recognize - a Maoist regime in Nepal, which shares borders with Tibet, and thereby China. The US, for instance, has yet to remove Nepal's Maoists from its official list of terrorists. For the moment, the great electoral exercise remains on the threshold, although a section of Nepal's intelligentsia continues to view the mission as an enigma.

Source: Asia Times Online, April 8, 2008

Maoists fear losing elections

Paul Soren

The Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-Maoist) has warned of another phase of revolution if the party was not voted to power. While campaigning in the eastern part of the country, Maoist chairman Prachanda and other prominent leaders have strongly articulated that the party will not accept defeat in the coming Constituent Assembly elections of April 10. Prachanda said “the pro-palace elements, Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (UML), Nepali Congress and some foreign powers are conspiring against the elections``. The Maoists believe that anti-national elements in Nepal were making efforts to prevent them party from winning.

The Maoists have realised that the elections would not be a cake walk for them as their support base has reduced over the past few months. They are now getting restive and engaging in anti-election activities. The cadre has been defying the Election Commission’s directive to follow the election code of conduct. The Young Communist League affiliated to the Maoist party has been indulging in violence during the campaign. In remote areas, they are intimidating and preventing common people from attending political programmes of rival parties. In all, the Maoists seem to be in a desperate mood to win the elections and are likely to use any means to achieve their objective.

Source: ORF, South Asia Weekly Report, March 30, 2008