Home >> South Asia >> Nepal & Bhutan

     Email   Print 

India and Nepal - The Real Party that Called all the Shots

Dipta Shah - 12/1/2005

The fact that India has been, remains and in all probability will continue to be the greatest external influence on Nepali politics is no revelation. However, the degree to which the South Block has been active in Nepal's politics is as ambiguous as ever. It is natural for the external agenda of any regional power to factor prominently in the domestic politics of neighboring states. In Nepal's context, India is no exception. What Nepalis (and increasingly, Nepal analysts) do take exception of, is the nature of India's influence - whether the manipulation has been positive or negative.

Indian sway over political outcomes in Nepal vary significantly. Some out rightly brand Indian positions as "external interference in Nepal's domestic affairs." Others refer to the same as "constructive involvement of a neighboring state."

The point here is that there are glaring ambiguities in Indian policies vis-a-vis Nepal. These inconsistencies more than justify a cautious appreciation of the regional power's intents. Although the practice of dismissing analysis of Indian designs (as misguided nationalism) is prevalent in elite political circles, this misconception is inherently flawed and should not thwart necessary examinations.

A determination over whether Indian involvement is constructive or destructive varies on a case-by-case basis. As Nepal's number one foreign aid donor, not all of India's involvement deserves trepid analysis. However, where the Maoist insurgency is concerned, India's association is complex, intricate and largely indecipherable.

Indian policies concerning Nepali Maoists are at best, schizophrenic. More precisely, Indian attitudes have been consistently and openly bi-polar.

On the one hand, India was the first nation state (even before Nepal itself) to declare the Maoist organization as terrorists. On the other, India has largely ignored Nepali Maoists operating on its soil and according to some, has openly abetted and harbored the Maoists. Reasons behind why an external and ultra-nationalistic outfit has been tolerated on Indian territory for so long, defeats rationalization.

There are ample reports of Nepali security personnel training in Indian camps that previously hosted Nepali Maoists. So when senior security personnel state that no resolution of the Maoist insurgency exists (in the absence of Indian acquiescence), they're not "pointing fingers" or "shifting blame." Such sentiments are completely legitimate - more so today, than they were a week ago.

On occasion, India has successfully modulated anti-Indian Maoist rhetoric by imprisoning the most radical of the bunch (C. P. Gajurel, Mohan Vaidya). Such actions have also served to assuage the perception of India's duality (for the international audience) and sent a stern signal within the Maoist ranks that India favors a certain faction, but not the entire Maoist outfit. This was key a driver of the much publicized split within the Maoists, earlier this year.

As part of the patch-up process (within the Maoist party), meetings were held between the Maoists second man (Baburam Bhattarai) and a prominent leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Prakash Karat. Why a man with an Interpol-issued Red Corner Notice was chauffeured around New Delhi to meet with high-ranking Indian politicians is a discussion for another time. To put the issue mildly, nation states have gone to war for less.

This is not to suggest that Nepal should go to war with India, but a reaffirmation of the helplessness and frustration that Nepalis feel.

India's treatment of Nepal's Maoist insurgency has several interpretations. A belief is held within some circles that the regional power's conduct is a function of it's pluralist nature - that there is true tolerance for a range of political ideologies within the world's most populous democracy.

By this rationale, India's policy on Nepali Maoists is a manifestation of it's tolerance for diversity. Apparently, even those deemed terrorists at a national level are tolerated (if the terrorized populous is non-Indian). Could India's definition of terrorists differ for those who use terror as a tactic but uphold political change (through violence) as a strategy?? Perhaps this interpretation is why Pakistan's refuses to recognize Kashmiri militants as terrorists.

Another interpretation is that India's incapacity to control radical left-wing insurgencies within its own borders accounts for its inability to control Nepali Maoists also. By this logic, India is a regional power for its neighbors to reckon with and simultaneously a union of dysfunctional states that its own federal government struggles to control. India's inability to tame its own insurgencies aside, how is it that Indian authorities could arrest some Nepali Maoists at will but not others?? And, how does one interpret the alleged presence of these "imprisoned" Maoist leaders during the talks between the 7-party alliance and the Nepali Maoists?

A third interpretation is that India by design, acts, walks and talks like a regional power - this is to say, there are parallel structures of authority within the nation state. As in the case of the lone Super Power that India attempts to emulate, India's Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) is called upon to execute government initiatives in times of crises. In this instance, the "crisis" faced by the Indian establishment was a measured dose of humiliation.

For a nation striving to project its prominence in global affairs, nothing hurts like a well placed snub - especially when the goading is done by a puny, insignificant country that supposedly resides within the rising power's sphere of influence. Could it be that India's reaction was to assert its regional power by forging an alliance between the King's opponents??

If the answer to this question is "yes," India has inadvertently acted in the best interest of the Nepalese people. By demonstrating its ability to coerce an agreement between the 7-Party alliance and the Nepali Maoists, India has selflessly exposed (to the rest of the world) that it has complete and unflinching control over an entire generation of Nepali politicians and Nepali Maoists. India has also left little room for speculation regarding the reason behind "coming clean" - retaliation against Nepal's Monarch for procuring China observer status in India's backyard.

It is very fortunate for Nepalis from all walks of life to finally witness a political event that enhances the prospects of a lasting peace. It is rather unfortunate for India's image because the world now realizes that had India wished an end Nepal's misery, it could have acted years ago and in the process, spared thousands of innocent lives.

That it took an act like February-1 to forge a stable alliance amongst 7 of Nepal's political parties and a calculated humiliation of the Indian polity to force a reaction (that serves in Nepal's best interest), is unfortunate. In fact, this sort of behavior is conduct unbecoming a regional power.

Could India's bid (in uniting the Nepali Monarch's opposition) have been a foreign policy blunder for the South Block? Was this outcome an unintended confirmation of General Mehta's (a retired Indian Army General) claim that "in circumstances as that of the Maoists, government strategy is implemented through intelligence agencies and not the official channels?"

If so, how confident should India's neighbors be, knowing that when push comes to shove, democratic Indian governments are prone to relying on clandestine agencies like RAW to execute their strategies?

Nepal's experience with this practice will definitely resonate across South Asia - to what extent can official Indian statements be trusted when come implementation time, it is the unofficial channels that are put in motion? Where does accountability reside in such situations? Are all of South Asia's problems really instigated at the behest of the Inter-Services Agency (as RAW would have the world believe)?

It cannot be coincidence that although "Indian intelligence established links with the Nepalese Maoists at least two years ago" (according to General Mehta), the days following the SAARC summit suddenly became the most opportune time to leverage these contacts. If there is truth to General Mehta's claim, why did the Indian establishment wait for "at least two years" to do something about Nepal's problem? What could possibly account for this lapse in communication between "official" and "unofficial" channels in a country that boasts the brains behind the global IT revolution?

Whatever the case may be, heartfelt gratitude goes out to the Indian government for acting in the best interest of Nepal. The envisioned outcome of February-1 may have failed to materialize in the manner intended, but thanks to our southern neighbor, there is renewed hope (with all the fundamental intact) for an end to this senseless insurgency.