02-14-2005, 09:22 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>King and aye </b>
The Pioneer Edit Desk
<b>The democracy-busting palace putsch in Nepal was a recent sign that the Kathmandu-New Delhi hotline had malfunctioned somewhere. Since Nepal is vital to India's security interests, New Delhi was expected to repair the communications breakdown.</b> Instead, its Nepal policy has lacked clarity, even threatening to collapse into woolly-headedness. As South Asian big brother, India would naturally be miffed at King Gyanendra's sudden declaration of Emergency. <b>But surely it cannot sacrifice neighbourhood realpolitik to churlishness.</b>
<b>Nepal's politicians have traditionally been no more than a buffer-on-paper between the King and the Maoists.</b> So-called democratically elected leaders have long colluded in an institutional set-up ensuring their own status as the palace's creatures. More, they have failed to counter insurgency's scourge, the ostensible brief of every short-lived political power-wielder. As in the past, it was a matter of time before the monarchy and the Maoists found themselves locked in direct confrontation. Yet India's response to the inevitable has not been marked by consistency. It first denounced the royal coup, without the mitigating signal that it wished to be kept in the King's loop.
Then it fuelled the notion that military and economic assistance was conditional to restoration of democracy. It subsequently appeared willing to grant Nepal's request for continued military aid in the form of equipment, logistical back-up and personnel training. A joint security group meeting was slated to discuss the Royal Nepal Army's requirements. Just when India seemed to set its priorities right, the Manmohan Singh regime called off the date. This is supposed to be a "signal" to King Gyanendra that his democracy-dismantling is unacceptable. That India is projecting itself as a regional pontiff is worrying enough in terms of the security impact of frayed Indo-Nepalese ties. <b>That it seems keen to join the 'multilateral' bandwagon of the West's self-serving caretakers of democracy is even more misguided.</b>
India recently sent a tsunami-related message to the West that South Asia was its sphere of influence. Why the US-UK should now help it wield clout in its own backyard is not comprehensible. While constitutional monarchy is the ideal for Nepal, it is not India's paramount concern. <b>Democracy in Pakistan is a sham. That hasn't blocked Indo-Pakistani dialogue</b>. Nor have the US and Europe been less indulgent towards the country under army jackboots. If India and the world can do business with Myanmar under the nose of the Mandela-like Aung San Suu Kyi, their mourning for political freedoms in Nepal can only seem contrived. <b>It is expected that the Congress-led regime at the Centre would use the Nepal crisis to do its bit of Nehruvian grandstanding in the name of universalist principles. But India's security concerns cannot be made to play second fiddle to sermonising.</b> Despite its regional clout, India could not anticipate, much less stop, democracy's collapse in Nepal.
After the event, pragmatic as-is-where-is diplomacy is unavoidable. New Delhi simply cannot afford to desert King Gyanendra in the anti-Maoist battle. How the anti-terror war is waged in Nepal, and who wins it, have a huge security bearing for left extremism-afflicted India. Two facts must be faced squarely. One, given the failure of Nepal's political class to check the Maoist sway, the Himalayan kingdom has two ways to go. Either it sticks with the monarchy, which the Maoists have vowed to destroy, for the time being. Or it braces for a Nepalese-style Pol Pot-a scary prospect for the region. Two, India can help the King fight the Maoists. Or it can help the Maoists fight the King-by not engaging him. The second course will serve neither India's security concerns, nor the cause of democracy in Nepal.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Pioneer Edit Desk
<b>The democracy-busting palace putsch in Nepal was a recent sign that the Kathmandu-New Delhi hotline had malfunctioned somewhere. Since Nepal is vital to India's security interests, New Delhi was expected to repair the communications breakdown.</b> Instead, its Nepal policy has lacked clarity, even threatening to collapse into woolly-headedness. As South Asian big brother, India would naturally be miffed at King Gyanendra's sudden declaration of Emergency. <b>But surely it cannot sacrifice neighbourhood realpolitik to churlishness.</b>
<b>Nepal's politicians have traditionally been no more than a buffer-on-paper between the King and the Maoists.</b> So-called democratically elected leaders have long colluded in an institutional set-up ensuring their own status as the palace's creatures. More, they have failed to counter insurgency's scourge, the ostensible brief of every short-lived political power-wielder. As in the past, it was a matter of time before the monarchy and the Maoists found themselves locked in direct confrontation. Yet India's response to the inevitable has not been marked by consistency. It first denounced the royal coup, without the mitigating signal that it wished to be kept in the King's loop.
Then it fuelled the notion that military and economic assistance was conditional to restoration of democracy. It subsequently appeared willing to grant Nepal's request for continued military aid in the form of equipment, logistical back-up and personnel training. A joint security group meeting was slated to discuss the Royal Nepal Army's requirements. Just when India seemed to set its priorities right, the Manmohan Singh regime called off the date. This is supposed to be a "signal" to King Gyanendra that his democracy-dismantling is unacceptable. That India is projecting itself as a regional pontiff is worrying enough in terms of the security impact of frayed Indo-Nepalese ties. <b>That it seems keen to join the 'multilateral' bandwagon of the West's self-serving caretakers of democracy is even more misguided.</b>
India recently sent a tsunami-related message to the West that South Asia was its sphere of influence. Why the US-UK should now help it wield clout in its own backyard is not comprehensible. While constitutional monarchy is the ideal for Nepal, it is not India's paramount concern. <b>Democracy in Pakistan is a sham. That hasn't blocked Indo-Pakistani dialogue</b>. Nor have the US and Europe been less indulgent towards the country under army jackboots. If India and the world can do business with Myanmar under the nose of the Mandela-like Aung San Suu Kyi, their mourning for political freedoms in Nepal can only seem contrived. <b>It is expected that the Congress-led regime at the Centre would use the Nepal crisis to do its bit of Nehruvian grandstanding in the name of universalist principles. But India's security concerns cannot be made to play second fiddle to sermonising.</b> Despite its regional clout, India could not anticipate, much less stop, democracy's collapse in Nepal.
After the event, pragmatic as-is-where-is diplomacy is unavoidable. New Delhi simply cannot afford to desert King Gyanendra in the anti-Maoist battle. How the anti-terror war is waged in Nepal, and who wins it, have a huge security bearing for left extremism-afflicted India. Two facts must be faced squarely. One, given the failure of Nepal's political class to check the Maoist sway, the Himalayan kingdom has two ways to go. Either it sticks with the monarchy, which the Maoists have vowed to destroy, for the time being. Or it braces for a Nepalese-style Pol Pot-a scary prospect for the region. Two, India can help the King fight the Maoists. Or it can help the Maoists fight the King-by not engaging him. The second course will serve neither India's security concerns, nor the cause of democracy in Nepal.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->