(First published by Foreign Policy Journal on Aug 6 2012)
Many domestic factors are at play
in the anticipated process of state restructuring in Nepal, ranging from
an increasingly polarized populace for and against ethnicity-based
federalization to the consistent ineptitude of political leaders failing
to lead from the front to seek a meeting point between conflicting
interests. But the increasingly prominent posturing of Nepal’s two giant
neighbors on these issues threatens to sabotage the whole process and
push Nepal further into chaos.
“When the uneasy relationship between
two Asian giants degenerates into a confrontation, Nepal will find it
extremely difficult to balance its relations with them. In such a
situation, weaknesses in Indo-Nepal relations would be open to
exploitation by unfriendly elements.” This is how Col. R. Hariharan, a
retired Indian Military Intelligence Specialist associated with the
Chennai Centre for China Studies, sums up the predicament of Nepal’s
foreign policy amid the changing nature of relationship between the
two rising Asian powers.
Writing on the Journal of Defense
Studies under the heading of “China’s Expanding Footprint in Nepal:
Threats to India”, Dr. Satish Kumar, Assistant Professor at one Indian
university writes: ”The
strengthening of bilateral ties between the two countries is quite
natural. But China’s overstepping in Nepal has a real and concrete
strategic impact on India’s Himalayan security.”
These two statements reflect the
increasing realization on the Indian side of the intensifying Asian
tug-of-war that the latest interactions between Nepal and China are
something qualitatively different from those in the past when India used
to take its influence in Nepal for granted. From the geopolitical view,
China’s increasing influence in Nepal can be viewed as a part of its
increasing assertiveness in general and India’s attempts at retaining
the centuries long influence in the tiny northern neighbor is also
understandable. These are indeed the recurrent themes of the
interactions that have been taking place between Nepal and either of the
two neighbors over past many years.
To date, as can be explained by
discrepancy in terms of economic, political, and military power,
politicians and diplomats from Kathmandu have contributed little towards
shaping the relationship of Nepal with either of the two neighbors.
Rather, the motives and actions of either New Delhi or Beijing have
shaped and reshaped those relationships. This makes even a small
overture by either of those capitals to Kathmandu very significant as
the other capital is likely to view the same with alarm and suspicion.
As a result, it has been long felt in
Nepal that the politicians in Kathmandu have miserably failed in
preserving the core national interests vis-a-vis the neighbors by either
deferring to their interest unnecessarily (usually when they are at
power) or antagonizing them through hollow rhetoric towards mean
political gains (obviously when they are in streets). This phenomenon is
much more prominent in relation to India, which does not hesitate being
seen taking sides in confrontations between various actors and
institutions in Nepal; unlike China, which plays more subtle and covert
role. In this backdrop, the preferential treatment of different
political parties and leaders by either of the two neighbors is not
uncommon.
Over past many months, the conflicting
positions of the two neighbors in the question of thorniest issue in
Nepal’s transition have increasingly come to the fore: the yet undecided
process of state restructuring that is supposed to follow the
implementation of the new constitution. While India visibly prefers the
ethnicity-based federalization of the state with as much autonomy to the
southern plains of Terai (that is increasingly identified as ‘Madhesh’
as more preferred political unit) as possible, same possibility has
become a matter of ominous concern for China which prefers stabilization
of Nepal with as little change in status quo as possible. The matters
went nearly out of hand of Kathmandu politicians drawing strong protest
from people about two months back when one Indian diplomat reportedly
prompted the Nepali politicians in the southern plains of Madhesh to
bring a “storm
of protest” for identity of the plains.
The situation was problematic enough
even when the Constituent Assembly (CA) was in existence until two
months ago, with the assembly fumbling to get the job of writing the
constitution done on time amid the failure of political forces to agree
on issues crucial to state restructuring. After the tragic collapse of
that institution with its failure, the uncertainty has increased and the
problems seem to only multiply for everyone, from Nepali politicians to
the governments and diplomats in the two neighbors.
In this context, some of the latest
developments in Nepal need special mention. Mohan Baidya, the president
of CPN-Maoist (that was formed after splitting the Unified CPN (Maoist),
the largest party in erstwhile CA), recently completed his 10-day trip
to China. On return, he was unequivocal on passing a message
from Beijing that China was “against any foreign interference in
Nepal in the name of federalism”. It could be clearly read in the
statement that the Chinese side had tried to woo Baidya away from the
stance of ethnicity-based federalization, something his party has
remained mum about since its birth, even though most of the leaders had
been strongly advocating the former before the split.
The wording and intention of the message
from Beijing aside, Baidya’s engagement with China is sure to create
discomfort in his former party, the UCPN (Maoist) which is still in
power in Kathmandu amid many difficulties and confusion. At one front,
the UCPN (Maoist) has been known for inconsistency in its foreign policy
characterized by India-bashing while at the street and India-embracing
once in power. Indeed, the current government led by Dr. Baburam
Bhattarai in alliance with the Madhesh-based regional political parties
is said to be one of the most pro-India governments in recent past, even
though many analysts portray it as merely pragmatic government.
At another front, the Maoist party
before split was the vociferous advocate of identity-based
federalization of Nepal, mainly because that had been the slogan around
which it had galvanized the support of masses from marginalized
communities during its decade long ‘People’s War’; a position which now
increasingly raises China’s discomfiture. In principle, the post-split
UCPN (Maoist) still maintains that position, but in absence of any
mechanism to move forward in the issue of state restructuring, they can
afford to continue sending the ambiguous message on the issue for the
time being even as the confusion around the whole political process
intensifies.
In the meantime, K. P. Oli, another
seasoned politician from another communist outfit CPN (UML), has
reportedly
pleaded to the highest authority in New Delhi to hear the
grievances of the opposition parties in Nepal, who bitterly criticize
the Maoists for clinging to power after collapse of the CA instead of
seeking the alternative of ‘national unity government’. The fact that
Oli even presented
himself as the prospective PM of Nepal in a foreign capital tells a
lot about the role New Delhi plays in shaping the outcomes of power
tussle in Kathmandu.
Ironically, while the Bhattarai led
government in Kathmandu is believed to be enduring because its stances
on crucial issues are more pro-Indian than those of past governments,
Oli has tried to precisely outsmart the former on the same front by
convincing the Indian establishment. Indeed, during the tenure of Madhav
Nepal as PM in the recent past, the alienation of the Maoists by an
alliance of almost all non-Maoist forces with blessings from India had
led to rude India-bashing by the former.
But now some deep paradoxes have
developed in Nepal’s political arena surrounding the issue of state
restructuring. First, with vocal opposition of the identity-based
federalization, the erstwhile center-right forces like CPN (UML) and
Nepali Congress (for whom India’s blessing was ‘usual’ and ‘natural’ as
opposed to the leftist Maoists who apparently favored closer ties with
China) have pushed themselves into increasingly awkward position with
India. While it is yet to be seen what policies the UCPN (M) adopts
after ouster from power some day in future, their natural course seems
to be more convergent with the one India would wish for them to follow.
This is sure to prompt Beijing to distance itself from their
once-trusted party, something the newly formed CPN-M wishes very badly.
Coming to domestic considerations, the
calculus of vote politics is such that the issue of federalization of
the country can no way be sidelined and stances of political parties on
this particular issue are going to matter more than anything else in the
upcoming polls, savagely polarized by the intense and often violent
debate over many months before the fateful dissolution of the CA.
Political parties advocating the ethnicity-based federalization of the
country are likely to garner votes of people from ethnic groups that
felt marginalized in the past, while those against that process are sure
to be favored by high-caste people from the hills who have been
dominating the state machinery till now.
Thus the issue of federalization, while
becoming that of prime concern for the neighbors, has come to be vital
for near as well as remote future of the political forces in the
country.
And exactly for the same reason, the
whole debate surrounding state restructuring in Nepal has been sabotaged
and degenerated into the vicious tug-of-war between and among the
vested interests. The verbal duels among politicians to appease a
particular section of population apart, the real and constructive debate
to seek the optimum mechanism to address the grievance of the people is
altogether missing. While extremist views for and against the
ethnicity-based federalization spread among the populace like wild fire
further polarizing the people, political parties are as busy wrangling
for the chair of PM in Kathmandu as ever.
It is not hard to follow the
developments in Kathmandu and see whether Beijing’s interests get upper
hand or those of New Delhi do, but the tussle makes the negotiated
settlement of divisive issue of state restructuring in Nepal
increasingly untenable.
Not that either Beijing or New Delhi is
to be blamed for the misfortune; it is natural for them to advance their
own interests. It is the myopia and ineptitude of the leadership in
Kathmandu that fails to reach the crux of the problem Nepal faces.
Rather than travelling to Delhi or Beijing for blessings, they should be
in dialogue among themselves and with the masses to convince them that a
compromise means as much losing something as gaining something and
negotiated settlement is the only way to better future as opposed to the
polarization along extremist lines.
Nepal is obviously vulnerable to the
tectonic shifts going on in world politics, and changing dynamics of the
Sino-Indian relationship is going to impact the future of this small
country. But so long as the politicians in Kathmandu keep seeking the
blessings of one neighbor or the other to outpace their rivals as a more
convenient alternative to painstaking negotiations and compromises at
home, Nepal is going to look more like a battlefield of increasingly
acrimonious regional powers rather than a sovereign and independent
nation.
Add to that the chaos resulting from the
leaders following the whims of crowds rather than judiciously leading
them in issues as sensitive and divisive as state restructuring that
makes a perfect recipe for a disaster.
Yet all hope is not lost. Nepal’s best
way forward is a comprehensive dialogue on all issues including state
restructuring among the political powers and all other stakeholders,
something that was amiss in the attempts to sort out those thorny issues
last time around, followed by political mechanism acceptable to all. On
federalization, a settlement may not entirely conform to the wishes of
either India or China but they will be happy to live with a stable Nepal
regardless of whether their interests are preserved or not in the
particular process. In the long run, that is indeed in best interests of
all the parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment