05-05-2006, 07:37 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Time to shun the Chinese trap
Beijing has executed well its plan of propping up the Maoists and then making Nepal's royalty an institution of disgrace, says Bulbul Roy Mishra
It is time for India and the world to watch apparently innocuous Chinese moves toward Nepal on diplomatic chessboard. It is "innocuous" as China has appeared to have taken a stance of non-involvement in Nepal's internal affairs. Chinese non-involvement is "apparent" and not real, as is borne out by their strategy of arms supply to the Royal army to crush the Maoists, only to render the King hateful and the Maoists popular. It is no secret that for the last 10 years, it was China that was covertly lending financial and logistic support to Maoists.
Sandwiched between two Asian superpowers, China and India, Nepal royalty, up to the regime of King Birendra (2001), had always felt affinity toward India for reason of common Hindu tradition. Democratic parties of Nepal also looked to democratic India, not Communist China, for support to their legitimate democratic aspirations. China, therefore, constantly strived to wean away strategically important Nepal from India's influence. Chinese strategists considered it nearly impossible as long as Hindu monarchy in Nepal was continuing. Their blueprint was as follows.
First, start an anti-royal armed movement, known popularly as the Maoist uprising, with an express intent to replace monarchy with a republic under Communist banner.
Second, start with a slogan for multi-party, secular, democratic republic so that Nepal's Hindu tradition is rendered politically irrelevant, conversion permitted, and its natural affinity toward India snapped. The above strategy became evident when Maoist leader Prachanda, in an interview to a Latin America Journalist in 2001, revealed that the reason why the movement started in districts like Rolpa and Rukum in western Nepal was that the influence of Hinduism was weakest there.
Third, in order to expedite abolition of the monarchy, it was necessary to make it not merely unpopular but hateful. The Chinese task was made easy when on June 1, 2001, then Crown Prince Dipendra reportedly and rather inexplicably killed King Birendra and his entire family and then killed himself to enable headstrong Gyanendra to ascend the throne. Thereafter, the new King walked into the Chinese trap by declaring that his target was to suppress the violent Maoists.
Fourth, win over the royalty by inducements and moral support to sustain autocracy. The inducement came in form of arms supply ostensibly to suppress the Maoists, and moral support came in form of admiration for arbitrary closure of 45 years old establishment of Dalai Lama's representative in Nepal as also the Tibetan Refugee Welfare office in January, 2005, on the flimsy ground that those offices were not registered under Article 3 of the Society Act.
Fifth, when the situation turns too hot for the King, quietly withdraw strategic support compelling the King to surrender to the wishes of the people and abdicate.
Sixth, from two conflicting interviews of Prachanda, one prior to royal assassination on June 1, 2001, given to a Latin American journalist, and the other to Siddharth Varadarajan of the Hindu in February 2006, the change in the Maoist stance is indicative of the shift in the Chinese strategy. In 2001, when King Birendra was unprovoking, Prachanda was breathing fire over inevitable armed revolution, predicting that "Ultimately we will have to fight with the Indian Army." In 2006, the script changed, despite provocation from King Gyanendra.
He found India's tough stand against autocracy positive and urged India to shed its two pillar theory of constitutional monarchy together with multi-party democracy. Prachanda's remark that China will not stake its cordial relation with India by supporting the autocratic King looked as if he was parroting the Chinese script.
Herein lays the Chinese trap where the likes of Mr Sitaram Yechuri are eager to lead India into. His unfounded claim of having reformed Nepal Maoists into believers of parliamentary democracy is absurd and stupid.
Whether Nepal should turn into a secular democratic republic, following India, or should continue with its Hindu tradition, but constitutional monarchy, only Kautilya-like diplomacy will help Nepal wriggle out of the former option, a clear trap for checkmate. India should strive for the alternate stalemating option.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Beijing has executed well its plan of propping up the Maoists and then making Nepal's royalty an institution of disgrace, says Bulbul Roy Mishra
It is time for India and the world to watch apparently innocuous Chinese moves toward Nepal on diplomatic chessboard. It is "innocuous" as China has appeared to have taken a stance of non-involvement in Nepal's internal affairs. Chinese non-involvement is "apparent" and not real, as is borne out by their strategy of arms supply to the Royal army to crush the Maoists, only to render the King hateful and the Maoists popular. It is no secret that for the last 10 years, it was China that was covertly lending financial and logistic support to Maoists.
Sandwiched between two Asian superpowers, China and India, Nepal royalty, up to the regime of King Birendra (2001), had always felt affinity toward India for reason of common Hindu tradition. Democratic parties of Nepal also looked to democratic India, not Communist China, for support to their legitimate democratic aspirations. China, therefore, constantly strived to wean away strategically important Nepal from India's influence. Chinese strategists considered it nearly impossible as long as Hindu monarchy in Nepal was continuing. Their blueprint was as follows.
First, start an anti-royal armed movement, known popularly as the Maoist uprising, with an express intent to replace monarchy with a republic under Communist banner.
Second, start with a slogan for multi-party, secular, democratic republic so that Nepal's Hindu tradition is rendered politically irrelevant, conversion permitted, and its natural affinity toward India snapped. The above strategy became evident when Maoist leader Prachanda, in an interview to a Latin America Journalist in 2001, revealed that the reason why the movement started in districts like Rolpa and Rukum in western Nepal was that the influence of Hinduism was weakest there.
Third, in order to expedite abolition of the monarchy, it was necessary to make it not merely unpopular but hateful. The Chinese task was made easy when on June 1, 2001, then Crown Prince Dipendra reportedly and rather inexplicably killed King Birendra and his entire family and then killed himself to enable headstrong Gyanendra to ascend the throne. Thereafter, the new King walked into the Chinese trap by declaring that his target was to suppress the violent Maoists.
Fourth, win over the royalty by inducements and moral support to sustain autocracy. The inducement came in form of arms supply ostensibly to suppress the Maoists, and moral support came in form of admiration for arbitrary closure of 45 years old establishment of Dalai Lama's representative in Nepal as also the Tibetan Refugee Welfare office in January, 2005, on the flimsy ground that those offices were not registered under Article 3 of the Society Act.
Fifth, when the situation turns too hot for the King, quietly withdraw strategic support compelling the King to surrender to the wishes of the people and abdicate.
Sixth, from two conflicting interviews of Prachanda, one prior to royal assassination on June 1, 2001, given to a Latin American journalist, and the other to Siddharth Varadarajan of the Hindu in February 2006, the change in the Maoist stance is indicative of the shift in the Chinese strategy. In 2001, when King Birendra was unprovoking, Prachanda was breathing fire over inevitable armed revolution, predicting that "Ultimately we will have to fight with the Indian Army." In 2006, the script changed, despite provocation from King Gyanendra.
He found India's tough stand against autocracy positive and urged India to shed its two pillar theory of constitutional monarchy together with multi-party democracy. Prachanda's remark that China will not stake its cordial relation with India by supporting the autocratic King looked as if he was parroting the Chinese script.
Herein lays the Chinese trap where the likes of Mr Sitaram Yechuri are eager to lead India into. His unfounded claim of having reformed Nepal Maoists into believers of parliamentary democracy is absurd and stupid.
Whether Nepal should turn into a secular democratic republic, following India, or should continue with its Hindu tradition, but constitutional monarchy, only Kautilya-like diplomacy will help Nepal wriggle out of the former option, a clear trap for checkmate. India should strive for the alternate stalemating option.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->