The Hindu Business Line : Nepal: An Indian <I>faux pas</I>?

THE Government of India has reacted in a knee-jerk fashion to the developments in Nepal. It has issued a strong statement condemning the action of the King in dismissing the Cabinet and imposing an emergency. To express the displeasure further, the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, cancelled his visit to Dhaka to attend the conference of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).

An additional reason given is the unsatisfactory nature of the law and order problem in the Bangladeshi capital. One wonders whether Bangladesh would have gone ahead with the proposal if things were really so bad because, more than any other entity, it would have been responsible for the security of the VIPs of the SAARC nations.

Of course, individual nations can make their own assessments. But none of the other SAARC nations decided against attending the meeting. The Association is composed of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The Presidents of Sri Lanka and the Maldives attend the conferences, while it is the Prime Ministers in other cases. Under the statute, a SAARC summit can be held only if there is total participation.

The Government's decision does not seem to be based on the long-term interests of India. One does not know how well the Government was informed about conditions in Nepal from its own embassy there. What we have seen in newspaper reports is only a small coverage of the happenings. Much more is available from other sources. The East-West Centre Association (EWCA) is an alumni group of the East-West Centre at Honolulu. At the Tokyo international conference of the alumni in August 2004, the leaders of the South Asian chapters met and decided to host jointly a South Asian Regional Conference to discuss the socio-economic issues facing the region and ways of resolving them.

The Kathmandu chapter accepted the responsibility enthusiastically to host it in collaboration with the others in the region, the first one of its kind. Preparatory steps were taken to schedule the event in November 2005. But, then, a disturbing firsthand account of a chapter leader from a South-East Asian country who had visited Kathmandu made the organisers decide on shifting the venue to New Delhi.

Two points emerged from his report. One was that only around 10 per cent of police stations in the country were under the control of the government, the rest being under Maoist rebels. It implied that for all practical purposes the writ of the government did not run beyond Kathmandu. Second, the tourist agencies were referring to the Americans in their conducted tours as Europeans in order to forestall any violence against them by the Maoists. The hate campaign subsequently extended to Indians also.

The US government issued a strong advisory to its citizens against travel to the country. The Nepal Travel Warning of October 26, 2004, issued by the US Government, said: "The Department of State urges US citizens to defer non-essential travel to Nepal. Maoist supreme commander Prachanda issued a press statement on July 1, 2004, threatening to use `more violent means' if peace talks with the Government of Nepal are not forthcoming or are unsuccessful. The Embassy has received information that the Maoists may attempt to attack or take actions specifically against US citizens as part of that contingency, particularly in regions of the country under Maoist control.

"On September 10, two bombs exploded at the American Centre compound. There were no injuries, but the blasts damaged the facility.

"On a number of occasions, Maoists have burned or bombed tourist resorts after the foreigners staying there were given short notice to evacuate. Maoists also detonate bombs periodically within Kathmandu itself. Several bombs have exploded in Thamel, a tourist hub.

"US citizens are advised to avoid road travel outside the Kathmandu Valley unless they have reliable information that they can proceed safely in specific areas at specific times. In March 2004, Maoist leaders announced road closures (blockades) in certain western and southern districts of Nepal.

However, the Embassy received widespread reports of Maoists forcibly blocking major roads throughout the country, including roads to Tibet, India, Chitwan, Pokhara, and Jiri... Because of heightened security risks, US official personnel do not generally travel by road outside the Kathmandu Valley. All official travel outside Kathmandu Valley, including by air, requires specific clearance by the Regional Security Officer."

Thus the compulsions on the King were such that he had to do something to save the country from being overrun by the Maoists. The Deuba Government could not handle the insurgency. It is indeed an irony that the King dismissed the government for its failure to conduct a general election! This is not something one expects from a dictator.

The coalition Cabinet had the Leninist party also as one of the allies. The conditions in that country were several times worse than what prevailed in India when Indira Gandhi imposed her infamous Emergency more than a quarter century ago. In fact, there was no justification for that drastic step. It was taken only to help her survival as Prime Minister and prepare the ground for a dynastic succession.

When some nations protested against the murder of democracy, they were told to mind their business as it was an internal matter. What has happened in Nepal is an internal matter. We have no business to preach democracy to others. We fraternise with many dictators and participate in conferences attended by them. In fact, Pakistan is the current chair of SAARC.

In this context the action of China is statesmanlike. It has said that what has happened in Nepal is purely an internal matter. The closure of the office of Dalai Lama in Kathmandu a few days ago, obviously at the instance of China, was an event full of significance the import of which seems to have been lost on South Block. If India discontinues its military and economic aid to Nepal, it will surely gladden the heart of China. It will only drive Nepal into its arms.

It would like to have a beachhead there for dealing with India in the future. Intelligent diplomacy should have led India to try to make Tibet an independent and neutral territory as a buffer between its giant neighbours. The Indian Government's latest thoughtless action has laid the ground for future trouble from China via Nepal. It could have said that the King's action was an internal matter and expressed the hope that normalcy would return soon and democratic institutions would be revived.

(The author is a former officer-in-charge in the Department of Economic Analysis and Policy of the RBI.)

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

Stories in this Section
Nepal: An Indian faux pas?

Running low on wagons

Economy: Build like the ant

Down the abyss?

How about the idea of a fixed-maturity equity fund?

HP's board flexes its muscles

Chancellor Gordon Brown for the World Bank?

Budget expectations

Branch banking