One good thing about Mohan Baidya-led CPN-Maoist leaders is that they don’t mince words in opposing unjust Indian interference in Nepali politics. Unlike most others who refer to India’s meddling only through allusions and metaphors they directly blame Delhi for political mess in Kathmandu. Of course, the ‘dash’ Maoists at times cross the line in attempting to consolidate their anti-India credentials. The misguided prohibition on screening of Hindi movies and entry of vehicles with Indian number plates last September was one such attempt. But issues Baidya and company are raising in the recent times deserve to be taken seriously. [break]
Baidya has been raising what ought to be common concerns of all Nepalis. He has called for immediate end to border encroachment, fiercely opposed lax citizenship distribution that has allowed Indian nationals to get Nepali citizenship, and stood firmly against India’s increasing political meddling. Are Baidya’s claims valid? Reports of Indian citizens acquiring Nepali citizenship are becoming routine. Border experts claim India has encroached about 60,000 hectares of land in 26 Tarai districts. The Indian consular in Birgunj once pressured Madhesi leaders to root for one state in the plains. India is yet to close the ‘field office’ in Biratnagar despite Nepal government’s request.
Agencies
On the political front, it has become clear that the Indian establishment is playing the strategy of divide and rule with Nepal’s main political parties. It has tried to cultivate a coterie of loyalists in each party and sideline the rest. Among the loyalists are Madhav Nepal and KP Oli in CPN-UML, Sher Bahadur Deuba and Krishna Sitaula in NC and Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Baburam Bhattarai in UCPN (Maoist), each of whom has proved strong pro-India credentials. In an interview with Nagarik daily last Friday, NC leader Dr Shashank Koirala revealed that Delhi sidelined BP Koirala for his principled stand on nationalism and supported king Mahendra’s 1960 coup. He also suggests that it favored Panchayat in national referendum of 1980. One may have to assess the veracity of these claims through historical analysis but as astute an observer as SD Muni cannot have been wrong to suggest in Nepal in Transition (2012) that New Delhi was actively engaged with Maoists during the insurgency and was helping to foment conflict in Nepal. Rumors in Kathmandu have it that Delhi was working from behind the scenes to engineer the split in UCPN (Maoist) last year.
Delhi’s warm felicitation of NC’s second-in command Sher Bahadur Deuba earlier this month was part of its deliberate attempt to sideline party president Sushil Koirala. Of course, Deuba is as deserving as Koirala of an official India visit, but the reason Deuba was preferred is disturbing. Koirala has been raising the issue of nationalism and national sovereignty for the past few months. He had also reacted angrily to the Birganj-based consular general’s remarks on Madhesh province. Has Delhi punished Koirala for this ‘crime’? There are speculations that Delhi will favor Deuba in the post-poll politics, putting Koirala’s prime ministerial prospects in great jeopardy. Apparently Koirala has two choices: Don’t speak against Delhi no matter what it does in Nepal, or speak up at the cost of his political career. Chances are that he won’t be able to withstand Delhi’s pressure tactics. History suggests the same.
The issue of whether to ignore Indian shenanigans or question its undue meddling had divided present day CPN-UML in 1999. Following the split, Bam Dev Gautam-led CPN (ML) launched a nationalism drive in 1999 leading marches of students and party cadres toward the Indian border at Kalapani. A decade later in January 2010, Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Baburam Bhattarai of UCPN (Maoist) followed suit by leading a long march towards the disputed boundaries of Kapilbastu, Kanchanpur and Nawalparasi. Then it looked as if Maoist leaders were waging an all out battle for national sovereignty. But the same leaders now maintain an eerie silence on the issues. In time, Baidya and Koirala might themselves morph into new Gautams, Dahals and Bhattarais. Why does this happen?
There could be two possible reasons: Greed of Nepali politicians and the hangover of colonial legacy in post-independence Indian rulers.
Murari Sharma has been consistently writing about how Nepali leaders compromise their political convictions for petty benefits like scholarship for their children. In one of his columns in this daily, he reveals that “political leaders are on the Indian embassy’s payroll” and Indian embassy doles out millions in cash to “Nepali leaders who made patriotic statements during the day and collected their cash from the embassy at night” (Can of worms, May 23, 2012). Fear is another factor that motivates leaders to submit to Indian whims. Journalist KP Dhungana in Open Secret (2012) has made it clear that India can “finish off” any person working against its interests in Nepali soil. Dhungana’s conclusion is that India was behind recurrent government changes during the 90s, and the gruesome murders of Jamim Shah and Mirza Dilshad Beg were carried out at its behest. The second factor is the colonial legacy of divide and rule: India’s first PM Jawaharlal Nehru adopted the same policy towards Nepal with which colonial Britain had ruled the Indian subcontinent for more than three hundred years. The trend continues to this day.
What then should be done? On contentious issues, finding ‘diplomatic solutions’ has long been at the top of list of Nepali and Indian politicians. Leaders from both sides reinforce that Nepal’s relation with India is special encompassing political, diplomatic, geographic and cultural spheres, and much beyond. Diplomacy, and not confrontation, is the key to resolving outstanding issues, they say. But I believe that Nepali leaders submitting themselves to do India’s bidding without raising a single issue of national interest is no diplomacy. It is not diplomacy for India to divide Nepali parties and using them to its advantage. Sadly, diplomacy between the two countries has been limited to such practices for long.
It is true that this tiny country with a flagging economy is dependent on India for virtually everything. But India will gain nothing by playing divide and rule here. By favoring one group of leaders over others, India may be able to serve some of its interests in the short term. But the so-called loyalists who do not hesitate to sell their loyalty for power and pelf cannot be trusted allies for the biggest democracy in the world in the long run.
Constant meddling has installed in Nepalis a sense of fear and loathing against India. The bitter realization that one has to put one’s career on the line even to raise just concerns over India will only fuel further resentment and hatred, which can only bolster anti-India elements in the country. Anti-Indianism will continue to thrive so long as Nepali people cannot look upon India as a trusted ally which can be relied on at times of need, but which lets them be at other times, just as a good friend should be. It is high time for Delhi to understand this simple but profound reality.
mbpoudyal@yahoo.com