04-18-2008, 10:54 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->India gifts Nepal to China
Balbir Punj (Pioneer)
The UPA Government can now flaunt one more 'achievement' along with inflation, deceleration in rate of growth and industrial production, and minority appeasement. The latest addition to this list is the gift of Nepal on a platter to China. With Communist China under virtual global siege for its horrible record on human rights in Tibet, the success of armed Maoists in Nepal should come as a heart-warmer for China's President Hu Jintao. The Indian Communists who keep the UPA in power are, of course, delighted. Mr Sitaram Yechuri has hailed the Maoist victory even as his comrades in Nepal are preparing to assume office with an anti-India agenda, including the revision of the peace and friendship treaty.
The attack that Maoists mounted on an important railway station in Bihar and looted the armoury, killing six policemen, last weekend, even as Maoists in Nepal were celebrating their electoral victory, is a straw in the political wind. Mr Yechuri is trying to mislead us by claiming that the victory of Maoists in Nepal through the ballot box will send a message to Maoists in India to give up their insurgency and take to democratic methods. In reality, it will be the other way round.
Due to the UPA's dalliance with the Communists for retaining power -- and before that with Maoists during the 2004 elections to gain power -- Maoists have gained influence over the last four years. This finds expression in periodic attacks on security forces at key points along the 'Red Corridor' the Maoists have set up through the forested areas of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Jharkhand and Bihar up to India's border with Nepal. The attack on Jhajhar railway junction on the Patna-Howrah mainline is not the first such incident.
The path the Nepal Maoists, once they are in power, will follow is already well-known. The monarchy, which has served as an anchor for Nepali society, will be dismantled. Instead of being a Hindu kingdom, which gave that country its unique identity, Nepal will be made a 'secular republic'. The 'secular' character is likely to mean anti-Hindu (as in India) and a 'republic' under Maoist domination may turn out to be another Cambodia under Pol Pot or a North Korea. Not only will Nepal's links with Indian society, culture and history be snapped, the Maoists will demand the scrapping of existing treaties with India. They will try to force India into giving more concessions -- for instance, unrestricted transit of goods.
At the same time, we can expect the Maoists to cry on China's shoulders and accuse India of denying Nepal its basic needs. <b>China has already built a highway up to Kathmandu. </b><b>We have to view the Maoist political programme in Nepal in the context of China's own strengthening of its strategic capabilities in Tibet, the ethnic cleansing it has achieved in Lhasa and the claims Beijing has been making on Indian territories all along the Himalayas. </b>This will provide us with an idea of the serious situation that will now arise for the security of the country in the wake of the Maoist triumph at the political level and the withering of the Nepali state as we have known it for centuries.
Apologists of the UPA are now saying that the rout of the Nepali Congress was unexpected and that Government was all along strengthening its clout in Nepal -- by persuading King Gyanendra and the Maoists to end their confrontation and revive the political process. This may be true. But New Delhi's fatal mistake was to accept the Maoist demand to end the monarchy. It was a 'heads I win, tails you lose' situation for Maoist leader Prachanda who managed to keep Indian influence at an arm's length when it still mattered.
India could have helped the non-Communist political forces in Nepal to convert the absolute monarchy into constitutional monarchy. The demand of the Maoists to scrap Nepal's Hindu identity had shocked even their allies in the interim Government. But the Maoists were able to dictate terms, partly because the setting up of the constitutional machinery was not made incumbent on disarming the insurgents.
As a result, the Maoists retained their armed strength and threatened to withdraw from the interim Government every time their non-Communist allies in the interim Government stood up to them. Holding the election while armed Maoist cadre were freely moving about amounted to making a mockery of the democratic process. But New Delhi did nothing to raise this issue with the UN and other bodies that took on the task of overseeing the fairness of the election.
For a long time our security agencies have suspected that the flow of arms to Maoists in India had a Nepal link. Now the collaboration between Maoists in India and Nepal will become an open affair. Indian Maoists will draw inspiration from Prachanda's 'success' and the methods used by him to achieve this success.
This is not to say that the other actors in the political drama in Nepal are innocent victims of Communist machinations. The monarchy lost much of its sheen after the mysterious palace massacre in which King Birendra and his family were killed. King Gyanendra, who subsequently assumed the throne, could not connect with the restive people of his kingdom. The mainstream Nepali politicians proved to be a querulous bunch devoid of any larger vision, leave alone the ability to implement it. Mr GP Koirala, who became Prime Minister in the interim Government, was too ill to lead his party and fight an electoral battle against Maoist leaders much younger than him.
It is surprising that India, which had a stake in the outcome of the Constituent Assembly election, chose to turn a blind eye to these developments. It has now paid the price, both for its inaction and lack of imagination in its Nepal policy. Surprisingly, the Government showed great alacrity in persuading the King to climb down in 2006.
Some people in India are now hopeful that once in power, the Maoist leadership will appreciate the reality of Nepal's geographical and cultural links with India and the depth of its economy's dependence on this country. They forget that Nepal's politicians have mastered the art of playing the victim of 'Big Brother' India every time their unreasonable demands are rejected by New Delhi.
With Beijing finding an ideological brother in power in Kathmandu, what is needed in New Delhi is a Government that can be firm when required while being flexible to Nepal's reasonable demands. But what we have is a Government that is dictated to by India's Communists. These very Communists are also playing China's game as is witnessed in their reaction to what is happening in Tibet.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Balbir Punj (Pioneer)
The UPA Government can now flaunt one more 'achievement' along with inflation, deceleration in rate of growth and industrial production, and minority appeasement. The latest addition to this list is the gift of Nepal on a platter to China. With Communist China under virtual global siege for its horrible record on human rights in Tibet, the success of armed Maoists in Nepal should come as a heart-warmer for China's President Hu Jintao. The Indian Communists who keep the UPA in power are, of course, delighted. Mr Sitaram Yechuri has hailed the Maoist victory even as his comrades in Nepal are preparing to assume office with an anti-India agenda, including the revision of the peace and friendship treaty.
The attack that Maoists mounted on an important railway station in Bihar and looted the armoury, killing six policemen, last weekend, even as Maoists in Nepal were celebrating their electoral victory, is a straw in the political wind. Mr Yechuri is trying to mislead us by claiming that the victory of Maoists in Nepal through the ballot box will send a message to Maoists in India to give up their insurgency and take to democratic methods. In reality, it will be the other way round.
Due to the UPA's dalliance with the Communists for retaining power -- and before that with Maoists during the 2004 elections to gain power -- Maoists have gained influence over the last four years. This finds expression in periodic attacks on security forces at key points along the 'Red Corridor' the Maoists have set up through the forested areas of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Jharkhand and Bihar up to India's border with Nepal. The attack on Jhajhar railway junction on the Patna-Howrah mainline is not the first such incident.
The path the Nepal Maoists, once they are in power, will follow is already well-known. The monarchy, which has served as an anchor for Nepali society, will be dismantled. Instead of being a Hindu kingdom, which gave that country its unique identity, Nepal will be made a 'secular republic'. The 'secular' character is likely to mean anti-Hindu (as in India) and a 'republic' under Maoist domination may turn out to be another Cambodia under Pol Pot or a North Korea. Not only will Nepal's links with Indian society, culture and history be snapped, the Maoists will demand the scrapping of existing treaties with India. They will try to force India into giving more concessions -- for instance, unrestricted transit of goods.
At the same time, we can expect the Maoists to cry on China's shoulders and accuse India of denying Nepal its basic needs. <b>China has already built a highway up to Kathmandu. </b><b>We have to view the Maoist political programme in Nepal in the context of China's own strengthening of its strategic capabilities in Tibet, the ethnic cleansing it has achieved in Lhasa and the claims Beijing has been making on Indian territories all along the Himalayas. </b>This will provide us with an idea of the serious situation that will now arise for the security of the country in the wake of the Maoist triumph at the political level and the withering of the Nepali state as we have known it for centuries.
Apologists of the UPA are now saying that the rout of the Nepali Congress was unexpected and that Government was all along strengthening its clout in Nepal -- by persuading King Gyanendra and the Maoists to end their confrontation and revive the political process. This may be true. But New Delhi's fatal mistake was to accept the Maoist demand to end the monarchy. It was a 'heads I win, tails you lose' situation for Maoist leader Prachanda who managed to keep Indian influence at an arm's length when it still mattered.
India could have helped the non-Communist political forces in Nepal to convert the absolute monarchy into constitutional monarchy. The demand of the Maoists to scrap Nepal's Hindu identity had shocked even their allies in the interim Government. But the Maoists were able to dictate terms, partly because the setting up of the constitutional machinery was not made incumbent on disarming the insurgents.
As a result, the Maoists retained their armed strength and threatened to withdraw from the interim Government every time their non-Communist allies in the interim Government stood up to them. Holding the election while armed Maoist cadre were freely moving about amounted to making a mockery of the democratic process. But New Delhi did nothing to raise this issue with the UN and other bodies that took on the task of overseeing the fairness of the election.
For a long time our security agencies have suspected that the flow of arms to Maoists in India had a Nepal link. Now the collaboration between Maoists in India and Nepal will become an open affair. Indian Maoists will draw inspiration from Prachanda's 'success' and the methods used by him to achieve this success.
This is not to say that the other actors in the political drama in Nepal are innocent victims of Communist machinations. The monarchy lost much of its sheen after the mysterious palace massacre in which King Birendra and his family were killed. King Gyanendra, who subsequently assumed the throne, could not connect with the restive people of his kingdom. The mainstream Nepali politicians proved to be a querulous bunch devoid of any larger vision, leave alone the ability to implement it. Mr GP Koirala, who became Prime Minister in the interim Government, was too ill to lead his party and fight an electoral battle against Maoist leaders much younger than him.
It is surprising that India, which had a stake in the outcome of the Constituent Assembly election, chose to turn a blind eye to these developments. It has now paid the price, both for its inaction and lack of imagination in its Nepal policy. Surprisingly, the Government showed great alacrity in persuading the King to climb down in 2006.
Some people in India are now hopeful that once in power, the Maoist leadership will appreciate the reality of Nepal's geographical and cultural links with India and the depth of its economy's dependence on this country. They forget that Nepal's politicians have mastered the art of playing the victim of 'Big Brother' India every time their unreasonable demands are rejected by New Delhi.
With Beijing finding an ideological brother in power in Kathmandu, what is needed in New Delhi is a Government that can be firm when required while being flexible to Nepal's reasonable demands. But what we have is a Government that is dictated to by India's Communists. These very Communists are also playing China's game as is witnessed in their reaction to what is happening in Tibet.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->