[India’s
cold shoulder to BRB, widely perceived as her “aapna
aadmi” – her own man - in Nepal ,
has not been adequately covered or explained here. Though in part it has
perhaps been overshadowed by the controversy over BIPPA, one may legitimately
wonder why BRB was received at the airport by merely an official of the
Ministry of External Affairs (his send-off was similarly dismissive) when both
Madhav Kumar Nepal and Prachanda during their respective official visits in
2010 and 2008 were greeted at the airport by a minister of state.]
By M.R. Josse
With interruptions in publication due to Dasain and Tihar
festivals, this column had not been able to deal with Prime Minister Baburam
Bhattarai’s visit to India .
Without going over ground traversed by the Nepali media, a few fresh insights
may be germane.
Bippa And All That
At the outset, what may be
recalled is that while signature on the Bilateral Investment Promotion and
Protection Agreement (BIPPA) during BRB’s - Baburam Bhattarai’s - excursion
caused a perfect storm within the Maoist party – one that, at the time of
writing, has not subsided – it was supported by, so to speak, its ‘partner in
crime’ the Madeshi leadership and by the business community, while being
welcomed by the Nepali Congress Party - NC- for reasons that are hardly
consistent with classical Maoist thought.
As far as the last aspect is
concerned, one may note NC’s Ram Saran Mahat’s cutting comment that the BIPPA
deal was welcome because it indicated that the anti-capitalist Maoist PM had,
at long last, come around to accepting his party’s longstanding stance
regarding foreign investment and the other trappings of globalisation.
Also memorable was Rashtriya
Janashakti Party’s Prakash Chandra Lohani’s laconic but devastating comment in
parliament that the Maoist party should henceforth be labelled as Modern
Capitalist Party!
While congenital optimists expect
that disputes and disagreements over BIPPA within the Maoist party will be
sorted out by their long-delayed and repeatedly postponed Central Committee
meeting beginning today, what also struck this observer as memorable was the
following observation by a Left-leaning columnist of the state-owned ‘The Rising
Nepal’.
“Before spreading a red carpet to
the Indian companies here, Dr Bhattarai needs to explain as to how the foreign
capital could pose (a) hindrance to boost (the) national economy 16 years ago
and how it could be catalytic to the (sic) economic growth now. The people have
every right to know about the changing ideological ground in the Maoist party.”
Very true.
The reference to “16 years ago” –
actually to 1996, the year the Maoists launched their so-called ‘people’s war’
– has to do with the 40-point charter of demands that the Maoists, represented
by none other than BRB himself, presented to the then prime minister Sher
Bahadur Deuba in the form of an ultimatum, which, in the event, they did not
honor.
Prominent among them was that
“domination of foreign capital in Nepalese business, finance and industry
should be ended”, not to mention that “all unequal treaties including the 1950
Nepal-India treaty should be abrogated”; that the “Nepal-India border should be
regulated and controlled”; that Gorkha recruitment centres should be closed
immediately”; as also that “cultural invasion of imperial and colonial nature
be stopped, including vulgar Hindi films, videos and magazines.”
Finally, we now have advocate
Balkrishna Neupane’s writ before the Supreme Court against BIPPA arguing that
it ought to be scrapped as it has, among other anomalies, accorded India
airspace rights in Nepal ,
on a non-reciprocal basis, in contravention of Article 4 of the
Constitution.
Indian Puzzle
Similarly intriguing was that his
scheduled courtesy call on Congress (I) chairperson Ms Sonia Gandhi was
scrubbed, not merely postponed. Those following the visit were also impressed
by the fact that Gandhi had been pretty active in public affairs after her
return from New York following
surgery, not to mention that she had, and has been, receiving foreign guests,
including the King of Bhutan and his new bride.
Although Nepali media
representatives covering the trip had, pre-visit, been in raptures about the
“enthusiasm and jubilation” in New Delhi
over BRB’s impending visit, such a mood was invisible at the pubic level, as
also virtually absent from the Indian media’s coverage screen!
Whatever was seen of it was
limited to BRB’s former JNU contacts and a couple of Left-leaning politicos:
even collectively they hardly constitute the general Indian, or Delhi ’s,
“aam aadmi” – general public! In
fact, one has come to learn that at the luncheon hosted by the Indian business
community for BRB the principal captains of business and industry were
conspicuous by their absence.
Revealingly, even the joint press
statement released at the end of the visit does not credit BRB with the idea of
an Eminent Persons Group to look into the 1950 Treaty, as one had been led to
believe from Nepali media reports; the credit is shared between the “two
sides”.
Without wishing to put too fine a
point on it, one doesn’t have to scrutinize the joint press statement to
realize that most of Nepal ’s
expectations were dumped into the “noted” or “will consider” slots to come to
the conclusion that, all in all, BRB was offered a cold shoulder.
That, of course, raises the
question: why? While only the principals and their close aides would have the
answer to that conundrum, this observer has a few hunches which he would like
to share with this column’s readership.
First, and foremost, BRB’s
scaling down the significance of his visit to India to merely a “goodwill” one,
which would not deal with familiar security-related issues that were at the
core of the Indian agenda, must have miffed the babus and netas of the Indian
establishment which, as all worldly-wise folk know, had carefully choreographed
and coordinated BRB’s elevation to premiership, including that by engineering
the support of the Madeshi Morcha.
Viewed from an Indian perspective
that downplay of India ’s
expectations by someone whom they had banked so heavily so must have truly
rankled in the official Indian breast!
Secondly, the fact that BRB’s
announced interest in an official visit to China, or in receiving Chinese
Premier Wen Jiabao in Nepal shortly, made conspicuously days before he set out
on his Bharat ‘yatra’, must have blown some very heavy-duty fuses in the North
and South Blocks. In Shakespearean language, the prevailing mood could then
presumably be accurately summed up as “Et tu, Brutus...”
That apart, Indian officialdom
could hardly have been dancing the ‘bhangra’ when they heard BRB not merely
extolling his party’s association with CCOMPOSA, a banned organisation of South
Asian Maoist parties/outfits, but actually going on to recommend the need for a
“revolution” in South Asia (read India) – presumably along lines of the
Maoists’ in Nepal!
My guess would be that officials
monitoring BRB’s movements and utterances would have been foaming in the mouth
at the gauche breach of the ground rules of hospitality and diplomatic
etiquette. And if that were not enough, they could hardly have been delighted,
either, to read in the ‘Hindu’ daily, on the very day of BRB’s arrival, his
homily about the need to discard the British colonial legacy, a subtle if
accurate castigation, among other things, on India ’s
policy vis-a-vis her neighbours.
Indeed, the only ‘gain’ for the
Indian side, from their point of view, was formalization of BIPPA – but that
too has only raised anti-Indian phantoms of domination and/or hegemony in
Nepal, hardly the expectation from her “aapna
aadmi”!
Lastly, what must have been even
more galling for India is to see that Prachanda has now been entrusted by the
BRB-headed coalition to fly off with a team to the United Nations headquarters
in New York for a meeting with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to muster support
for an integrated development plan for Lumbini, the Buddha’s hallowed
birthplace – a proposition that, one understands, is not looked up with favour
by the movers and shakers in Luyten’s Delhi.
It is, of course, quite a
different matter that such a plan is deeply flawed, not only because the
mission is to be led by a leader of a movement that, unlike the Buddha, took up
arms but also because the Maoists are not exactly the most appropriate for the
job: why not a well-known or venerated Nepali Buddhist scholar who would have
no political axe to grind?
Besides, let us not forget that
Ban is not a Buddhist but a Christian, as also that the UN is a secular
organisation that is not naturally given to promoting religious sites as a
matter of policy.
Stand Up
Finally, since in the public
perception today is that the Maoist party is splintered into three segments –
Maoist, Socialist, and Capitalist – the public needs to collectively ask: will
the real Maoists please stand up?
That query assumes great
significance in that the voter should know what he/she is voting for; the ever
shifting/divisive Maoist stands are yet another argument why the CA cannot be
endlessly extended. The Maoist party today is not the same as the one that
contested the 2008 polls!
[The hope is that an increase in trade will feed into wider trust between the two countries and help them resolve major flashpoints, like the disputed Kashmir region, although a solution to this problem has proved intractable for decades.]
REUTERS
Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani
Khar, in an exclusive interview with Reuters, said negotiations to normalize
trade with India
would allow progress on other issues between the two nuclear-armed South Asian
rivals.
"I think it's broadly agreed
that we need to make some simultaneous progress on these issues," she
said.
Trade has long been tied to
political issues between the neighbors, who have fought three wars since
independence from Britain
in 1947.
The hope is that an increase in
trade will feed into wider trust between the two countries and help them
resolve major flashpoints, like the disputed Kashmir
region, although a solution to this problem has proved intractable for decades.
"But there has been a great
improvement in the environment," she said. "I think we can move
forward."
She strongly denied that Pakistan
was not committed to finalizing Most Favored Nation (MFN) status for India, as
alleged by an unnamed Indian government official on Friday, who said Islamabad
was "backtracking" on the issue in the face of domestic opposition.
"There is absolutely no
question of backtracking of cabinet approval of trade normalization with India ,"
she said. "I want to completely dismiss any indication that there's any
retraction on what we said."
Pakistan announced it would
upgrade India to a most Favored nation on Wednesday, a move that would help
normalize commercial ties by ending heavy restrictions on what India is allowed
to export across the border.
Wednesday's announcement was
trumpeted on both sides as a milestone in improving relations shattered by
attacks by Pakistan-based militants in Mumbai in 2008. Formal peace talks,
known as the "composite dialogue," resumed in February.
Khar said the two countries'
commerce secretaries would meet in mid-November to hammer out the details of
the trade agreement, but that there was no lack of commitment to the agreement
itself.
"The cabinet very clearly
gave them a way forward, which is trade normalization with India ,"
she said.
Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani
also rejected the charges of backtracking in comments to reporters in Lahore
on Saturday.
Less than one percent of India 's
merchandise exports are sold to Pakistan ,
in terms of dollar value, but in September a joint statement pledged to double
bilateral trade flows within three years to about $6 billion.
Lasting peace between the two
countries is seen as key to stability in the South Asian region and to helping
a troubled transition in Afghanistan
as NATO-led forces plan their military withdrawal from that country in 2014.
Khar said relations with the United
States were also on the mend, with "a
complete convergence of stated interests" on Afghanistan .
"Nothing would make us
happier than a strong government in Afghanistan ,"
she said. "I look at the last few weeks, and relations with the U.S.
have been generally positive. It's basically the operational details to agree
on."
The United
States and its allies in Afghanistan
have been pressing Pakistan
for years to tackle the Haqqani network, a powerful insurgent group which says
it owes allegiance to the Afghan Taliban, but has traditionally been seen as
close to Pakistan 's
spy agency.
At an Istanbul
conference in early November focusing on stabilizing Afghanistan ,
a senior U.S.
official said that Pakistani action against the Haqqani network did not
necessarily need to be military.
Instead it would include
"ensuring that intelligence doesn't go to the Haqqani network" and
"that they don't benefit from financial resources or flow of finances."
@ The Himalayan Times
@ The Himalayan Times