Reality bites
AUG 06 -
The drumbeats of nationalism are rumbling louder. Several “revelations” in recent days have contributed to the volume. The first was the admission by Shyam Saran, who once served as an ambassador to Nepal. Saran admitted India intervened in Nepal to reverse the sacking of then Army chief Rukmangud Katuwal by the then Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal in 2009. Saran said India intervened because it “did not want Nepal Army’s professional integrity invaded.” His admission came during the book launch of Nepal in transition: from People’s War to fragile peace in New Delhi. Another launch of the same book in Kathmandu a week ago generated another rumble. This time, it was an academic and one-time diplomat SD Muni, considered a “Nepal hand” in India, who made headlines. Muni claimed during the book discussion that king Tribhuvan Shah had written to India during the anti-Rana agitation in 1950, offering that Nepal be a part of Indian federation. Muni’s claim appears to be a rumour—he hadn’t seen the document himself, but some of his friends in India’s Ministry of External Affairs assured him that it existed. Muni said other things too. For example, that the Maoists had written to India during their insurgency, reassuring India that its vital interests in Nepal will not be harmed by the Maoists.
The Maoist Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai agrees that they wrote to India, as they wrote to other international actors and that there’s nothing new in the revelation. But given the acerbic denouncement of Indian “expansionism” the Maoists have made in the last few years, the admission has convinced many that their litany of complaints against India is a mere pretense, and they, like any other major political actor in Nepal, have “sold out” to India. At the receiving end of the nationalism debate has been PM Bhattarai, who, with a dejected air, announced last Friday to a group of journalists that “the keys are elsewhere,” but keeping short of explaining what that meant. Invoking the immortal Nepali poet Bhupi Sherchan, he merely said: “We are pawns.”
What is a self-respecting Nepali to make of the Prime Minister’s comment? The newspapers are awash with damning commentaries, and the opposition leaders are indignant at helplessness portrayed by someone trusted with leading the country. But a couple of questions remain unanswered. First, if Bhattarai is indeed “India’s man” in Kathmandu, why did he consider it necessary to reveal who really runs the show? Second, if Nepal is really a “pawn”, then what is the way out of the game?
Bhattarai’s comment can be taken together with Dahal’s in the days he was compelled to resign as prime minister. Although it does not appear the same, the two Maoist Prime Ministers’ responses are similar. Dahal appeared angry, furious even, blaming the “foreign gods” for his departure. Bhattarai appears dejected, as if he’s given up the fight. Or perhaps he feels “betrayed” by the Indians and senses their support for his government is waning. Their response, in whatever form, reveals fundamentally the same truth: India remains a defining factor in Nepali politics.
The second question deserves greater discussion. If Nepal is merely a pawn as the PM alleges, what needs to change so that our politics becomes more independent?
The answer, according to PM Bhattarai (see Post interview, Qualitative change in relation with China not possible right away, August 6), is to focus on economic development. His consistent refrain has been that only with economic progress can Nepal attain greater sovereignty and independence, a rationale he has used to defend his signing the investment agreement, BIPPA, with India. Geopolitically, Bhattarai thinks Nepal should be transformed from Prithvi Narayan Shah’s “yam” to a “bridge” between two great powers. However, only time will tell how effective the Bhattarai medicine is. Strong economic performance may give Nepal higher bargaining power in political negotiations, but it hardly is sufficient to bring about a qualitative change in the relationship, given the asymmetry.
In the immediate future, the room for leverage by foreign powers will be drastically reduced if the constitutional ambiguities are sorted out, especially those related to power transfers.
The sooner a process is in place to elect, or replace, powerful positions, including that of a Prime Minister and a President, the lesser the room for maneuver. This, of course, means writing a constitution at the earliest.
While internal work related to keeping the house in order can substantially enhance political independence, externally, Nepal needs to come out strongly in furthering the spirit of the Non-Aligned Movement, of which it was a founding state. There are those who say that the NAM’s relevancy is over with the dissolution of the USSR and the end of Cold War. That may be true for Eastern Europe, but not for us. As the PM himself has admitted, there are signals that a version of the Cold War is being played out in Nepal with India and China both vying to increase their influence.
The first step towards halting this development would be for Nepal to unequivocally reject the notion that Nepal is a “buffer state” between two big powers. In practical terms, rejecting the notion of the buffer state means that Nepal builds transport and other linkages with both India and China to integrate the country into their trade networks.
For hundreds of years, Nepal has had to suffer the disadvantages of being between two big powers with none of the advantages of being next to two big economic powers. This is because India, considering anything to the south of the Himalayas its sphere of influence, has been opposed to greater linkages beyond. China, on the other hand, has been quite happy keeping Tibet isolated from other countries. Needless to say, this arrangement has been highly disadvantageous to Nepal.
Unsurprisingly, what was said in the 60s still rings true. In Nepal: Strategy for Survival, Leo Rose, an American writer, mentions one of Mahendra’s ministers. The gloomy minister apparently told Rose in 1962 that Nepal’s fate is “likely to be eventual absorption by either India or China, and that the decisions and actions of Nepali government will not be crucial determining the results.” Half a century has passed since the gloomy minister confided to the great American scholar, and yet so little has changed in terms of Nepal’s bitter geopolitical reality.
Posted on: 2012-08-07 08:34
Post Your Comment
Today's Paper
The Kathmandu Post in Print
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
by Abin
She’s an actress....Had approached for acting lessons...they took her in their party!
ADVERTISEMENTS
OUR PUBLICATION :
