The Hindu Business Line : Kathmandu under siege

If the extremist violence continues in Nepal and economic development remains on the back-seat, India may be faced with a situation of growing Maoist violence in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, coupled with a large influx of Nepalese nationals. New Delhi will have to imaginatively handle the pressing issues of improving the standards of governance in Nepal and in some of its neighbouring Indian States, says G. Parthasarathy, who also draws a parallel between the Maoist menace in Nepal with the Naxalite problem in Andhra Pradesh.

THE Nepal Prime Minister, Sher Bahadur Deuba, and the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister, Mr Y. S. Rajasekara Reddy, seem to be afflicted by the same malady. In early December 2004, Mr Deuba announced at the World Buddhist Summit at Lumbini that he was prepared to discuss all issues including the Maoists' demands for establishing aConstituent Assembly to replace the present constitutional monarchy, if the Maoists responded positively to his call for a dialogue.

Mr Deuba threatened that he would order countrywide elections if the Maoists did not positively respond to his proposals for dialogue by December 13. His threat to hold elections was absurd, given the prevailing law and order situation in his country. Not surprisingly, the Maoists, who have a presence in all 75 districts of Nepal, exercise control over virtually the entire countryside and have blockaded the capital and the strategic East-West Highway, disdainfully rejected Mr Deuba's pronouncements. They made it clear that Mr Deuba was merely a puppet of the Palace and that they would negotiate only with the monarch.

Mr Rajasekara Reddy had eloquently pronounced that he would bring peace to the State by negotiations with the Naxalites. He then announced that he had reached a `ceasefire' agreement with the Naxalites. The Naxalites used the `ceasefire' to strengthen their position. They embarked on a programme of occupying private and government-owned forest-land. They showed scant respect for the `ceasefire', and on December 16 set off a landmine that seriously injured four policemen.

When the `ceasefire' was in effect the two major factions of the Naxalite movement in India — the People's War and the Maoist Communist Centre united to form the Communist Party of India (Maoist). Sensing the weakness of the Reddy administration, the Maoists announced that they would continue to `bear arms' and fulfil their `revolutionary objectives' such as the forcible redistribution of land and the extortion of `revolutionary taxes'.

The AP Chief Minister seemed to forget that he had been elected primarily to deliver good governance and not grovel in the face of Maoist threats. And like Mr Deuba, he seemed to forget the maxim that a legitimate government does not offer concessions or plead for negotiations from a position of weakness with those determined to overthrow it.

During the past three years, Maoist violence has spread from 57 to 152 of the 493 districts in India. We would do well to remember that even a statesman like Jawaharlal Nehru ruthlessly crushed the peasant Communist insurrection in Telengana in 1948, even as he sought to undertake a programme of extensive land reforms. The same approach was adopted by Indira Gandhi and Siddhartha Shankar Ray to crush the Naxalite movement in West Bengal. Neither Nehru nor Indira Gandhi attempted to appease those who resorted to violence in the quest of `revolutionary objectives'.

The British used a similar approach in crushing the Maoist inspired Communist insurrection in Malaya and in dealing with the Mau Mau in Kenya. New Delhi should remind British diplomats and international busybodies like the UN Under-Secretary-General, Mr Kieran Prendergast, of these developments, when these worthies deliver long lectures about alleged human rights violations in Nepal by the Royal Nepal Army and equate the Maoists with the internationally recognised Government of that country.

Nepal shares a 1600-km border with five Indian States — Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Sikkim and Uttaranchal. We indeed have a great stake in what happens in Nepal than the EU countries of Norway, Denmark, or the Netherlands, as developments in Nepal directly impact on our bordering States.

The US seems to have a far better appreciation of these imperatives than some of the non-entities in the EU. In these circumstances, it is not surprising that encouraged by a Nepali official in the UN, the Maoists are asking for UN mediation for talks with the Nepal Government.

Just as the Maoists in India have clearly defined their objectives, the Maoists in Nepal have made no secret of where they stand.

While labelling India as `hegemonic' and the United States as `imperialist' the Chairman of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), Mr Pushpa Kamal Dahal, made it clear that the Maoist insurrection was only the first step in establishing a one-party `dictatorship of the proletariat'.

The Maoists have targeted Indian businesses and established links with their ideological brethren in bordering Indian States. Adding to the political complications in Nepal is the total lack of public and political credibility of the Deuba Government.

The veteran politician and former Prime Minister, Mr Girija Prasad Koirala, has asserts that the Deuba Government lacks a `legitimate mandate'. Mr Koirala has noted that the Government will enjoy legitimacy and can negotiate credibly with the Maoists only after the reinstatement of the dissolved Parliament.

New Delhi recognises that the Maoist menace can be tackled only by a two-track approach. The first involves a ruthless military crackdown by a government that is perceived within Nepal to enjoy legitimacy and a measure of popular support.

Second, there is recognition that over the past five decades successive governments in Nepal have featheredtheir own nests, but done precious little by way of economic development or socio-economic change. Nepal has the worst indicators for economic progress and socio-economic change in South Asia. This needs to change. New Delhi has consistently voiced support for a constitutional monarchy in Nepal. The hard reality, however, is that King Gyanendra appears to have little faith in democratic political processes and seems determined to undermine Parliamentary Democracy in his kingdom. Appeals from New Delhi for the King to restore and reconvene the Parliament in Nepal and appoint a government enjoying Parliamentary support have apparently not been heeded.

The time has perhaps come for New Delhi to consider whether there would not be merit in supporting the Maoists' call for a Constituent Assembly for the people in Nepal to determine the extent of public support for a Republican Constitution. Neither King Gyanendra nor Crown Prince Paras would win many popularity contests in their country.

There is thus a need to keep our channels of communication open with all parties including the Maoists, while making it clear that we will not allow them to prevail by force of arms. There are indications from a several parts of Nepal that Maoist excesses are inviting popular resentment. We should encourage the convening of a Round Table Conference in which all political parties in Nepal, including the mainstream Communist parties, participate to build a political consensus on how to move forward.

The Monarch has to be persuaded to stick to his constitutional role and not assume extra-constitutional powers.

Apart from the international complications in dealing with the Maoist menace in Nepal, New Delhi faces domestic problems arising from the fact that Nepal borders two of perhaps the worst administered States in India — Bihar and Uttar Pradesh where the law and order situation and abysmal standards of governance are perpetually matters of national concern.

Nepal's population is rapidly growing and is expected to reach over 50 million by 2020. If the Maoist violence continues unchecked in Nepal and economic development continues to take a back seat, we could be faced with a situation in coming years of growing Maoist violence in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, coupled with a large influx of Nepalese nationals. New Delhi will have to imaginatively handle pressing issues of improving the standards of governance in Nepal and in some of its neighbouring Indian States.

(The author is a former High Commissioner to Pakistan.)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
SEBI raises the bar

New patent regime a bad medicine?

Callousness unending

Kathmandu under siege

BPCL/KRL merger

Reform of banks