Whenever there is any political uncertainty in Nepal, a group of people spread the rumours that Nepal’s sovereignty is at risk in the hand of India. With the continuation of political deadlock in the country, the Madhesh uprising and the controversial interview of General Ashok Meheta, this issue has once again come in the forefront of political debate. Any serious debates beyond a non-effective personal opinion flare up chiefly from the proponents of undemocratic rule in the country, although there are few people in all political spheres and leanings who are influenced by the so called idea of Indian expansionism. The palace propaganda machine has used anti-Indian rhetoric as the most useful weapon to defend the cause of Absolute monarchy in Nepal since decades. It is hardly surprising, given the fact that they cannot identify any other reason to convince people why autocratic monarchy is necessary in Nepal. How could people of the 21st century believe on the inevitability of an authoritarian kingship? Hence, they pose the threat of Indian intervention on Nepal in the absence of monarchy, to create confusion and anxiety on the population that is extremely sensible about it's independence. Their strategy to soothe the anguish of the public against tyranny has worked so far with the help of the hoax they have spread about Indian aggression. But their reasoning that India would gulp Nepal like Sikkim at the worst or establish a dominion like Bhutan at the best is utter non-sense.
Given the world order at present, the growing economic and political influence of India and the imbalance of development within it's own vast geography, there is not a tiny bit of probability of India wanting to annex Nepal. An aspirant of permanent membership in the security council, India has to win the confidence of International community and the only way to achieve that is by providing an exemplary democratic leadership in South Asia.
Saying that, however, we cannot be dismissive about India's interest on Nepal. It obviously wants to grasp it's influence on Nepal as a major international player. Not only the US but also ambitious nations like India do want to promote their supremacy in as many countries as possible. While US, with it's superior economic and military strength, has become a global hegemon; countries like Russia(Ukraine, Georgia etc.), Syria (Lebanon), Turkey(Cyprus), Uganda/Rwanda (DR Cong) have exploited geographical proximity and maintained hegemony over their neighbours. Only, European nations have learned to help their neighbours without trying to muddle in their internal affairs which in itself is in an experimental process. In case of India, although it's role has been dubious several times on a number of issues, it is very insensible to blame that their priority is to destabilize Nepal. Past experience tells that India has forced Nepal to sign on some disproportionate treaties and agreements on trade and water resources and Indian state authorities have incited locals along the Indo-Nepal border to encroach the northern territory.
These behaviors have helped to instigate some sort of hatred against India amongst the Nepalese. However, we must take note of the failure of our diplomats and authorities to take strong stance while dealing with their Indian counterparts during negotiations for these lopsided agreements. The imbalance in bilateral agreements have more to do with the ineptness of our leaders and negotiators and less to do with India's cunnigness to show more mercy to their neighbor. To avoid such kind of imbalances, Nepal has to raise it's bargaining aptitude in the dialogue table. The foremost thing would be to work out Nepal's strategy on all possible water dealings with India for the future. Nepalis experts should identify and study the project on which India would show interest and demand for the best reward during bilateral talks. Also, a new scientific demarcation of border is necessary to prevent land encroachment.
Similarly, our political leaders should abandon their over-dependence on Indian leaders and base their political activities in Nepal rather than across the border, so that Indian influence in Nepali politics can be gradually lowered. Moreover, if the relationship with other nations improve, Nepal doesn't have to depend on India in international forums, reciprocating the decrement in Indian influence. For some more decades to come, India would not like to lodge military intervention in Nepal on it's own. There's only one possibility of Indian military mobilization in Nepal and that happens only if the Royal Nepal Army fails to quell the Maoists insurgency and the rebels threaten to take total control of the country. In that case also, India would step in only if Nepal's King or rulers request for that kind of assistance. That is the worst case scenario and the King will be held more responsible than any others if such a situation arises. Because, he is the one who is longing for military solution of the rebellion, dismissing any chance of dialogue with the rebels while they are merely demanding a constituent assembly election as a pre-condition to put down the weapons. No matter how vociferous the royal propagandists have become against India, the direct relationship and clandestine dealings between the palace and the Indian ruling class seldom remain in a closet. Such double standard demeanours of the royalists will finally force India to withdraw constitutional monarchy from it's definition as one of the twin pillars of Nepal's stability and prosperity. Once India accepts parliamentary democracy as a single pillar, monarchy is gone in Nepal. It has shown some readiness to accept a democratic republic but Indian commitments appear to be fishy at times. Right now, albeit indirectly, India has not withdrawn it's backing to the King. Once that happens, Nepal is a democratic republic. Our younger generation is waiting to embrace a new political system and so far India has impeded on their intentions.
Given the world order at present, the growing economic and political influence of India and the imbalance of development within it's own vast geography, there is not a tiny bit of probability of India wanting to annex Nepal. An aspirant of permanent membership in the security council, India has to win the confidence of International community and the only way to achieve that is by providing an exemplary democratic leadership in South Asia.
Saying that, however, we cannot be dismissive about India's interest on Nepal. It obviously wants to grasp it's influence on Nepal as a major international player. Not only the US but also ambitious nations like India do want to promote their supremacy in as many countries as possible. While US, with it's superior economic and military strength, has become a global hegemon; countries like Russia(Ukraine, Georgia etc.), Syria (Lebanon), Turkey(Cyprus), Uganda/Rwanda (DR Cong) have exploited geographical proximity and maintained hegemony over their neighbours. Only, European nations have learned to help their neighbours without trying to muddle in their internal affairs which in itself is in an experimental process. In case of India, although it's role has been dubious several times on a number of issues, it is very insensible to blame that their priority is to destabilize Nepal. Past experience tells that India has forced Nepal to sign on some disproportionate treaties and agreements on trade and water resources and Indian state authorities have incited locals along the Indo-Nepal border to encroach the northern territory.
These behaviors have helped to instigate some sort of hatred against India amongst the Nepalese. However, we must take note of the failure of our diplomats and authorities to take strong stance while dealing with their Indian counterparts during negotiations for these lopsided agreements. The imbalance in bilateral agreements have more to do with the ineptness of our leaders and negotiators and less to do with India's cunnigness to show more mercy to their neighbor. To avoid such kind of imbalances, Nepal has to raise it's bargaining aptitude in the dialogue table. The foremost thing would be to work out Nepal's strategy on all possible water dealings with India for the future. Nepalis experts should identify and study the project on which India would show interest and demand for the best reward during bilateral talks. Also, a new scientific demarcation of border is necessary to prevent land encroachment.
Similarly, our political leaders should abandon their over-dependence on Indian leaders and base their political activities in Nepal rather than across the border, so that Indian influence in Nepali politics can be gradually lowered. Moreover, if the relationship with other nations improve, Nepal doesn't have to depend on India in international forums, reciprocating the decrement in Indian influence. For some more decades to come, India would not like to lodge military intervention in Nepal on it's own. There's only one possibility of Indian military mobilization in Nepal and that happens only if the Royal Nepal Army fails to quell the Maoists insurgency and the rebels threaten to take total control of the country. In that case also, India would step in only if Nepal's King or rulers request for that kind of assistance. That is the worst case scenario and the King will be held more responsible than any others if such a situation arises. Because, he is the one who is longing for military solution of the rebellion, dismissing any chance of dialogue with the rebels while they are merely demanding a constituent assembly election as a pre-condition to put down the weapons. No matter how vociferous the royal propagandists have become against India, the direct relationship and clandestine dealings between the palace and the Indian ruling class seldom remain in a closet. Such double standard demeanours of the royalists will finally force India to withdraw constitutional monarchy from it's definition as one of the twin pillars of Nepal's stability and prosperity. Once India accepts parliamentary democracy as a single pillar, monarchy is gone in Nepal. It has shown some readiness to accept a democratic republic but Indian commitments appear to be fishy at times. Right now, albeit indirectly, India has not withdrawn it's backing to the King. Once that happens, Nepal is a democratic republic. Our younger generation is waiting to embrace a new political system and so far India has impeded on their intentions.
No comments:
Post a Comment