For Nepal and India, the road ahead is difficult
Siddharth Varadarajan
Among the hurdles: The parties' lack of confidence, as well as
New Delhi's anxiety over the U.N. involvement in the disarmament of the
Maoists and elections to a constituent assembly.
Momentous though the events and accomplishments of the past few weeks
have been, the struggle for democracy in Nepal is perhaps entering its
most difficult phase only now. As the country moves towards elections to
a constituent assembly, the ingenuity and wisdom of not just the
Nepalese political forces but also of India will be put to the test. The
choices each makes will help to determine whether the `April Revolution'
reaches its final destination or disappears in the quicks and of palace
intrigue and political cowardice.
Amidst the exhilaration and excitement of the people's movement in
Nepal, India's momentary suspension of disbelief following Karan Singh's
fatal meeting with King Gyanendra stands out as the one discordant note.
Whatever New Delhi intended, people in Kathmandu saw in both the
choice of the special envoy and the subsequent Indian endorsement of the
monarch's cunning first proclamation a sign that India cast its lot with
the palace. To make matters worse, this syndrome of mixed signals - of
`tough' messages delivered, sometimes in private, to an intractable
monarch by envoys enamoured of kingship, or petrified of the Maoists -
continued right up to the bitter end.
At a time when lakhs of people were on the streets protesting King
Gyanendra's ploy of asking the Seven-Party Alliance to nominate its
Prime Minister and take executive power, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
told journalists accompanying him to Hanover that the king was acting in
the "right direction."
He also needlessly endorsed the discredited two-pillar theory of
constitutional monarchy being as indispensable to stability in Nepal as
multi-party democracy. In the same unhelpful vein, National Security
Adviser M.K. Narayanan chipped in from Germany that India might resume
arms supplies to the Royal Nepal Army if the situation in the country
continued to deteriorate.
Saran's eleventh-hour intervention - at a press conference last
Saturday - that India stood with the people of Nepal and not with any
royal pillar retrieved India's standing on the streets of Kathmandu. But
unless the underlying problem which plagues India's Nepal policy is
tackled, ambiguity is bound to crop up again.
India's Nepal problem has two dimensions, which are interlinked.
First, New Delhi does not fully appreciate that a thoroughgoing
democracy including a republic, if that is what the Nepalese want, will
be good for India. Secondly, subsequent governments have allowed
multiple channels of communication which amplify the existing policy
dissonance in Delhi and create maximum confusion.
Instead of the Indian embassy and ambassador, acting on the
instructions of the Ministry of External Affairs, being the sole conduit
for messages between India and the Nepalese establishment and political
parties, a large number of interlocutors and busybodies have involved
themselves in the process.
There are the special envoys with their one-on-one meetings with King
Gyanendra, where nobody else knows what is discussed. There are the
Ministry of Defence and the Chief of the Army Staff, who believe in
running their own lines of communication with the RNA.
Then there are tantric interlopers and Hindutva fanatics who further
contribute to the radio clutter. More noise also comes from our legion
of ex-rajas, rajvadas and `cadets' who have family ties with the
Narayanhiti Palace and who intercede at crucial moments with the ruling
party to ensure that India does not side with the people of Nepal.
Somewhere in the middle of this unholy mess are the intelligence
agencies, which also appear not to know what India should be doing. For
example, their agents turned a blind eye to meetings between the Nepal
Maoists and the SPA, which were crucial to the mass mobilisation
witnessed on the streets of Kathmandu in April.
But their boss, India's intelligence czar, worries endlessly about
the security threat posed by the Maoists and is reportedly keen on
turning the RNA's weapons tap back on again.
India might have muddled its way through the thicket of policy
dissonance to emerge, finally, on the side of the people, but there is
one major obstacle still to be overcome.
This is the official anxiety about allowing the United Nations to
play a role in the implementation of the SPA-Maoist road map for peace.
Now that Nepal's Parliament has unanimously passed a resolution
calling for elections to a constituent assembly, it is time for both
Kathmandu and New Delhi to get serious about how those elections are to
be conducted.
Since the Maoists are unlikely to surrender their arms until after
the palace's military powers are neutralised, some kind of international
supervision will be needed to provide assurances of a level playing
field to all during elections to the constituent assembly and even while
the body meets.
The Maoists say they are prepared to confine their armed fighters to
the barracks under U.N. supervision pending elections and their eventual
integration into a new national army along with elements of the RNA.
Such a formula provides the only viable option for insurgency to end
peacefully.
But without international oversight, this is impossible to implement.
For obvious reasons, India cannot involve itself in this process and
would not want the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)
there either. Nor would India want the task executed by a `contact
group' led, inevitably, by European countries which are part of Nato's
overall command structure.
Courtesy: The Hindu |