09-11-2005, 07:44 AM
Swapan Dasgupta in Daily Pioneer. The URL may not be archived
Quote:
Why be so myopic?
Government circles have reacted angrily to reports in The Pioneer last week that its representatives met Nepal's Maoist chief Pushpa Kamal Dahal, alias Prachanda, last month.
Although there has been no formal denial, 'knowledgeable circles' would have us believe that meetings with Prachanda did take place but that it is not in 'national interest' to make them public. Prachanda, in a carefully worded interview, has denied meeting MEA officials but is curiously silent on the suggestion that his Indian interlocutors were officials of the ubiquitous Cabinet Secretariat.
Considering there was no official response to earlier media reports of Indian Intelligence taking Nepal's JNU-trained Maoist 'ideologue' Baburam Bhattarai on a nostalgia trip around Delhi's Left circles, the angry silence over the Prachanda visit is understandable. The supercilious we-don't-react-to-media attitude of the present MEA dispensation has become a euphemism for arrogant non-accountability.
The issue is not some ethical lapse in the conduct of neighbourhood relations. Upholding national interest often demands a less-than-scrupulous adherence to pious proclamations for peace and goodwill among all men. It all depends on how the 'national interest' is defined and perceived.
Since the royal takeover on February 1, India's Nepal policy has followed an interesting course. First, the MEA chose to give King Gyanendra a crash course in democracy, with the Foreign Secretary going to the extent of enunciating a 'doctrine' of democratic fundamentalism. Second, it was followed by sustained engagement with the leaders of Nepal's political parties to build a united front against the King. Finally, India appears to be in the process of brokering a deal between the seven-party alliance and the Maoists that will create conditions for the overthrow of the monarchy by the end of 2005.
The three-month ceasefire announced by Prachanda last week is not the prelude to the Maoists laying down arms, disbanding their People's Liberation Army and choosing the parliamentary path. It is prefaced on the belief that a united front with the 'lesser' enemy is necessary to defeat the 'main' enemy.
The Maoists are aware that a frontal march on Kathmandu will not be acceptable to international opinion. Prachanda would rather use the Nepali Congress and the UML as the public face of the turbulence that leads to the final overthrow of the monarchy. It is one thing for Prachanda to seek out his Kerensky, it is a different matter for India to facilitate his revolution. Having decided that the monarchy is also its main enemy, New Delhi has put its weight behind a project that will not only witness the creation of a Red Nepal but will have horrific consequences on Indian democracy.
Let's not delude ourselves that a republican Nepal will be like a Himalayan India. For the moment the Maoists will take a backseat to the G P Koiralas and Madhav Nepals. However, with an armed militia at their disposal and control over at least two-thirds of the countryside, it is only a matter of time before Prachanda gobbles up the fractious political parties. To survive and operate, the seven-party alliance will need a no-objection certificate from the Maoists. And that will either not be forthcoming or will come at the cost of permanent subordination to the red flag.
For India, this is short-sightedness at its resplendent best. It is conceivable that the King may have given offence to one or two senior functionaries of the MEA by not being sufficiently deferential. Is that a good enough reason to collude in a regime change? So intense is the personal animosity against the King that South Block mandarins have even delighted in whispering grave charges of personal misdemeanour against those Cabinet Ministers who have cautioned against vindictive diplomacy.
What is also amazing is that MPs who realise the implications of India playing footsie with Nepal's Maoists have not chosen to speak up. Will we wait for the 'revolutionary corridor' across India to become operational before we wake up to our folly in Nepal?
Quote:
Why be so myopic?
Government circles have reacted angrily to reports in The Pioneer last week that its representatives met Nepal's Maoist chief Pushpa Kamal Dahal, alias Prachanda, last month.
Although there has been no formal denial, 'knowledgeable circles' would have us believe that meetings with Prachanda did take place but that it is not in 'national interest' to make them public. Prachanda, in a carefully worded interview, has denied meeting MEA officials but is curiously silent on the suggestion that his Indian interlocutors were officials of the ubiquitous Cabinet Secretariat.
Considering there was no official response to earlier media reports of Indian Intelligence taking Nepal's JNU-trained Maoist 'ideologue' Baburam Bhattarai on a nostalgia trip around Delhi's Left circles, the angry silence over the Prachanda visit is understandable. The supercilious we-don't-react-to-media attitude of the present MEA dispensation has become a euphemism for arrogant non-accountability.
The issue is not some ethical lapse in the conduct of neighbourhood relations. Upholding national interest often demands a less-than-scrupulous adherence to pious proclamations for peace and goodwill among all men. It all depends on how the 'national interest' is defined and perceived.
Since the royal takeover on February 1, India's Nepal policy has followed an interesting course. First, the MEA chose to give King Gyanendra a crash course in democracy, with the Foreign Secretary going to the extent of enunciating a 'doctrine' of democratic fundamentalism. Second, it was followed by sustained engagement with the leaders of Nepal's political parties to build a united front against the King. Finally, India appears to be in the process of brokering a deal between the seven-party alliance and the Maoists that will create conditions for the overthrow of the monarchy by the end of 2005.
The three-month ceasefire announced by Prachanda last week is not the prelude to the Maoists laying down arms, disbanding their People's Liberation Army and choosing the parliamentary path. It is prefaced on the belief that a united front with the 'lesser' enemy is necessary to defeat the 'main' enemy.
The Maoists are aware that a frontal march on Kathmandu will not be acceptable to international opinion. Prachanda would rather use the Nepali Congress and the UML as the public face of the turbulence that leads to the final overthrow of the monarchy. It is one thing for Prachanda to seek out his Kerensky, it is a different matter for India to facilitate his revolution. Having decided that the monarchy is also its main enemy, New Delhi has put its weight behind a project that will not only witness the creation of a Red Nepal but will have horrific consequences on Indian democracy.
Let's not delude ourselves that a republican Nepal will be like a Himalayan India. For the moment the Maoists will take a backseat to the G P Koiralas and Madhav Nepals. However, with an armed militia at their disposal and control over at least two-thirds of the countryside, it is only a matter of time before Prachanda gobbles up the fractious political parties. To survive and operate, the seven-party alliance will need a no-objection certificate from the Maoists. And that will either not be forthcoming or will come at the cost of permanent subordination to the red flag.
For India, this is short-sightedness at its resplendent best. It is conceivable that the King may have given offence to one or two senior functionaries of the MEA by not being sufficiently deferential. Is that a good enough reason to collude in a regime change? So intense is the personal animosity against the King that South Block mandarins have even delighted in whispering grave charges of personal misdemeanour against those Cabinet Ministers who have cautioned against vindictive diplomacy.
What is also amazing is that MPs who realise the implications of India playing footsie with Nepal's Maoists have not chosen to speak up. Will we wait for the 'revolutionary corridor' across India to become operational before we wake up to our folly in Nepal?