02-03-2005, 12:11 AM
I dont agree with this at all. At this point India has to act swiftly and get the king to agree to becoming India's protectorate. Nepal is too important for India to be flushed down the toilet like this.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->India and the King
The Pioneer Edit Desk
India's Nepal policy just collapsed. Indian policy-makers now need to introspect because Nepal is vital to India's security interests. Nepal should have been a test case for India's ability to cultivate good relations with its neighbours, which it has signally failed to do with any, except Bhutan. Honest reflection is called for to understand why it has proven impossible to cultivate good relations with the one country, which shares so much with India culturally.
The first imperative for India now is self-restraint instead of piqued retaliation for King Gyanendra's abandonment of parliamentary democracy and virtual dismissal of the 1989 constitution. The second injunction, which, unfortunately, needs articulating, is the need to abjure personal frictions between Narayanhiti Palace and key Indian policy-makers. To put it baldly, India needs to engage with King Gyanendra, however painful it is for the pride of its world-weary statesman. His Majesty cannot avoid the issue of restoring parliamentary democracy, but India should not be more concerned about its fate than the people of Nepal.
If Indian policy-makers feel that the King cannot govern effectively, or indeed survive without their goodwill, they must then give up the pretence of wishing Nepal well and assert the primacy of India's legitimate security interests in Nepal above the former. However, Indian policy makers must surely be aware how perilous this option may be. Its other ill-disposed neighbours have every incentive to take advantage of any Indian miscalculation in Nepal. They may respond to upping the ante on their individual grievances in their respective geographical spheres. The King may be a lonely figure today, condemned across the world, but he is not entirely alone. He and Nepal may suffer intolerably from Indian anger at his vaulting ambition, but his demise may prove costly for India as well.
Indian policy went wrong in Nepal because Jawaharlal Nehru decided that it was akin to India's princely states, ready for democratisation. What was a noble sentiment in the general Indian context, first backfired in Kashmir because the Abdullah he sponsored turned Kashmir into a more serious headache for India than its monarch is likely to have done. India's historical demand for the democratisation of Nepal is the reason for the ire of its elite against India. It has intervened in Nepal on a scale that it would have deemed imperialist in any other Third World country. It wrongly imagines that a newly installed democratic elite in Nepal, courtesy GOI, would remain friendly, nay, duly craven, towards India. On the contrary, the dynamic of every national elite is to assert its autonomy. It was the fear of losing this autonomy that made many in Nepal unduly receptive to the PRC and diabolical Pakistani machinations.
A new policy towards Nepal is required. India should merely insist that it will not sit idly by if its legitimate security and other interests are compromised. But India must swallow its pride and let democracy take its own course in Nepal. The monarchy may delay its restoration, but cannot curb it indefinitely. Nepal's much-derided democracy, which was barely allowed to function for a decade, did improve its human development indices. As for the Maoists, decisive military action is unavoidable to coerce a settlement for the sake of Nepal's future. And further humiliation of King Gyanendra would be a mistake because New Delhi has not adequately grasped his sense of royal grandeur and pride. Judging by the appointments to his cabinet today, he may already be holding out an olive branch.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->India and the King
The Pioneer Edit Desk
India's Nepal policy just collapsed. Indian policy-makers now need to introspect because Nepal is vital to India's security interests. Nepal should have been a test case for India's ability to cultivate good relations with its neighbours, which it has signally failed to do with any, except Bhutan. Honest reflection is called for to understand why it has proven impossible to cultivate good relations with the one country, which shares so much with India culturally.
The first imperative for India now is self-restraint instead of piqued retaliation for King Gyanendra's abandonment of parliamentary democracy and virtual dismissal of the 1989 constitution. The second injunction, which, unfortunately, needs articulating, is the need to abjure personal frictions between Narayanhiti Palace and key Indian policy-makers. To put it baldly, India needs to engage with King Gyanendra, however painful it is for the pride of its world-weary statesman. His Majesty cannot avoid the issue of restoring parliamentary democracy, but India should not be more concerned about its fate than the people of Nepal.
If Indian policy-makers feel that the King cannot govern effectively, or indeed survive without their goodwill, they must then give up the pretence of wishing Nepal well and assert the primacy of India's legitimate security interests in Nepal above the former. However, Indian policy makers must surely be aware how perilous this option may be. Its other ill-disposed neighbours have every incentive to take advantage of any Indian miscalculation in Nepal. They may respond to upping the ante on their individual grievances in their respective geographical spheres. The King may be a lonely figure today, condemned across the world, but he is not entirely alone. He and Nepal may suffer intolerably from Indian anger at his vaulting ambition, but his demise may prove costly for India as well.
Indian policy went wrong in Nepal because Jawaharlal Nehru decided that it was akin to India's princely states, ready for democratisation. What was a noble sentiment in the general Indian context, first backfired in Kashmir because the Abdullah he sponsored turned Kashmir into a more serious headache for India than its monarch is likely to have done. India's historical demand for the democratisation of Nepal is the reason for the ire of its elite against India. It has intervened in Nepal on a scale that it would have deemed imperialist in any other Third World country. It wrongly imagines that a newly installed democratic elite in Nepal, courtesy GOI, would remain friendly, nay, duly craven, towards India. On the contrary, the dynamic of every national elite is to assert its autonomy. It was the fear of losing this autonomy that made many in Nepal unduly receptive to the PRC and diabolical Pakistani machinations.
A new policy towards Nepal is required. India should merely insist that it will not sit idly by if its legitimate security and other interests are compromised. But India must swallow its pride and let democracy take its own course in Nepal. The monarchy may delay its restoration, but cannot curb it indefinitely. Nepal's much-derided democracy, which was barely allowed to function for a decade, did improve its human development indices. As for the Maoists, decisive military action is unavoidable to coerce a settlement for the sake of Nepal's future. And further humiliation of King Gyanendra would be a mistake because New Delhi has not adequately grasped his sense of royal grandeur and pride. Judging by the appointments to his cabinet today, he may already be holding out an olive branch.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->