August 16, 2010

INDIAN PRAGMATISM, WRANGLING LEADERS AND THE EX-MONARCH

Posted by The Himalayan Voice:
[At present, India’s policy towards Nepal is no different from managing a brothel—a purely business transaction, where the pimps are identified and paid off to get the best beauty in town. Playing one force against another has completely extirpated people’s trust over the current political processes in the country. People are losing trust over liberal democracy. The politicians of ethnic parties now come across as puppets playing at the hands of external power. In summary, India has made Nepali populace, both Pahadis and Madhesis, wary of its intentions. It can certainly do better. All it has to do is stand by its commitment to the democratic process. People of Nepal, at least the educated ones, very well understand the sensitivity of Indo-Nepal relationship.]       
           
Dr. Hari Bansha Dulal
Kathmandu's Constituent Assembly Building, where the fifth prime ministerial 
run-off  election is slated for Wednesday August 18, 2010 
The political situation in Nepal is getting murkier every day. Recently, India sent two of its former ambassadors to Nepal to find an “outlet” to the never ending stalemate. One of them, K. V. Rajan, who landed immediately after Shyam Saran left, is now busy having talks informally with squabbling Nepalese political leaders. Subsequent visits of the former Indian diplomats make it clear that the situation is out of control of the handlers based in Indian Embassy campus in Kathmandu. This is certainly not the situation, where bureaucrats, especially the younger ones trying to vault higher into the overly bureaucratic and hierarchical structure of the Indian Foreign Service (IFS), would like to be in. They, for their part, seem to have tried everything from backdoor dealings to issuing open threats. But at times, things do not work despite all sweat and toil, and that is life. It certainly doesn’t feel good, does it?

To India’s dismay, things in Nepal are surely not going the way Saran and other “Nepal experts” based in Delhi had imagined, when they came up with the formula of bedding the violent Maoist radicals with the moderate mainstream political parties. They thought that by catapulting the Maoists into the mainstream—which is what they thought they were doing till the Maoists swept Constituent Assembly elections—they would have complete dominance over Nepali politics and politicians. It would have been true if politics was an electric circuit where you exactly know the way electric current flows, and stop it, if need be. But politics is not an electrical circuit. In it, you have an ego, ambitions, power, and money at play. Hence, deciphering how one would act in changed circumstances is a very tricky business.

Saran and others crafting India’s “pragmatic” Nepal policy should have taken cues from what happens in India all the time. Protégé abandon their political mentors as their political base and popularity expands. Nitish Kumar, the current chief minister of Bihar, which is also the home state of Saran, is one such example. Nitish ended the parliamentary career of George Fernandes, who was not only his mentor but also a person that helped a formerly lightweight Nitish to jump start his stagnant political career under Lalu Prasad Yadav. It was Fernandes that helped Kumar to break away from Lalu’s Janata Dal in 1994 and form the Samata Party.

India wants to turn Nepal into a subservient client state like Bhutan, but can’t articulate exactly how. This inability has led India to engage in a never-ending series of dangerous experiments that have completely destroyed the prospects of establishment of egalitarian republican order in Nepal. Saran and fellow pragmatists placed enormous confidence on transformational power of Indian establishment’s moral and material support to the Nepali Maoists during the insurgency and their role as a “guarantor” and “facilitator” of the twelve-point agreement signed in New Delhi. They thought it was more than enough to keep the Nepali Maoist on a leash. But little did they realize that impacts of moral and material support strength-bound and wane as protégé gain their own strength. As support base swells, they feel less obliged to remain subservient. It happened with the Maoists and again with the Madhesi People’s Rights Forum. In the case of later, India was quite successful to contain the defection by administering vertical split. The bottom line is that moral and material support does not buy eternal subservience.

To say the least, India’s policy toward Nepal is seriously flawed. India sincerely hoped that uprooting of the Monarchy would align its northern neighbor permanently in its sphere of influence. But that hope got dashed away when the tactical use of nationalism by the monarchy was soon replaced by the jingoism of the Maoists. In order to neutralize the Maoists, Indian establishment then exploited the genuine quest for ethnic empowerment. While the Madhesi politicians are being assured of all help in their quest, the likes of Laxman Tharus that are dead against Madhesi parties’ one Madhesh agenda are being occasionally ferried to New Delhi for secret consultation and direction by the Indian intelligence. Ethnic populace clamoring for their genuine rights appear as confused, if not more, as ever. Even the leaders appear bewildered. Recently, Upendra Yadav, during one of his media interviews said that it is not only Kathmandu but also Delhi does not understand their plight. If the Nepali media are to be trusted, there are reports all over about K. V. Rajan and the current Indian ambassador meeting with the ex-monarch Gyanendra Shah.  And should we take them as factual reports from the ground, then the never-ending experimentation in the name of “pragmatism” by the Indian establishment, may be viewed as making a complete U turn in Kathmandu.

At present, India’s policy towards Nepal is no different from managing a brothel—a purely business transaction, where the pimps are identified and paid off to get the best beauty in town. Playing one force against another has completely extirpated people’s trust over the current political process in the country. People are losing trust over liberal democracy. The politicians of ethnic parties now come across as puppets playing at the hands of external power. In summary, India has made Nepali populace, both Pahadis and Madhesis, wary of its intentions. It can certainly do better. All it has to do is stand by its commitment to the democratic process. People of Nepal, at least the educated ones, very well understand the sensitivity of Indo-Nepal relationship. The new herd of politicians and bureaucrats cropped up from the well-established transparent democratic system would be more level-headed and reliable than the ones currently in circulation and bartered occasionally. They may not serve Indian interest completely, but for sure, they will not be foolish like the herd we have now to resort to jingoism. The transaction costs of dealing with them will be far less than what India is incurring now. End experiments and get back to the basics. It will be beneficial both for India and Nepal.
@ My Republica
COMMENTS:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Shiv Rana
Date: Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 6:53 AM
Subject: comment_INDIAN PRAGMATISM, WRANGLING LEADERS AND THE EX-MONARCH
To: The Himalayan Voice

I agree with Dr Hari Bansha Dulal when he says, quote “Playing one force against another has completely extirpated people’s trust over the current political process in the country. People are losing trust over liberal democracy. The politicians of ethnic parties now come across as puppets playing at the hands of external power.” unquote. And all this happens because one's own house is not in order. And why it is not in order? Because leaders' own self interest is above the national interest.

Why are external powers trying to fiddle in the internal affairs of the country is because there is no unity in the country. Every external force is trying to fish in the muddy water and nobody knows who will get what. Be it China, India or Pakistan.

The first and foremost occupation of all the leaders of Nepal must be to get the good, reliable and people centric governance going. And that can not happen with the present dispensation of the political alignment where multi party system is in vogue. Therefore the nation needs serious discussion on getting to two party system for a stable govwernment for a fixed duration.
   
Col Shiv Om Rana, PhD
New Delhi, India                                          
Cell Phone: +91 99999 07870
Shivrana@gmail.com
(Please click here for my recent article on Nepal.)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Facebook
Date: Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 3:11 AM
Subject: Anil Narendra commented on your link.

"What is Nepal's policy? Only to ask for help or like having something to beg in its hand.  Nepal can’t even choose its Prime Minister after four or five times repeated voting ! Easy to blame India for Nepal's problems. Believe me, India has enough problems of its own. Nepal has become an additional headache."

Anil Narendra, 
New Delhi, 
India (via Facebook)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dirgha Raj Prasai
Date: Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:36 PM
Subject: Fighting against traitors in Nepal ( History of Intervene) 2010
To: himalayanvoice@gmail.com

Thanks for the article by Hari Bansha Dulal which is very praiseworthy. I appreciate him as a nationalist.
Also herewith is a file attachment-' Fighting Against Traitors in Nepal (History of Intervention) 2010'

Thank you.

Dirgha R. Prasai,
Political Analyst
Former Member of Parliament
Ghattekulo, Kathmandu
Nepal.


Related articles: