Non-alignment was the de facto Indian foreign policy position in the Cold War years, even though after the 1971 'treaty of friendship' with the Soviet Union India's façade of neutrality in all international disputes all but crumpled. But in its near neighborhood, the post-independence India has always been preoccupied with protecting, through every imaginable means, its 'sphere of influence'. At the heart of this sphere is Nepal.India's role in Nepal's unfolding constitutional crisis is being closely scrutinized as things go from bad to worse in the Tarai belt. Many believe the Madheshi parties, who together have less than a tenth of the total CA seats, would not have been able to bring the Tarai to a standstill without New Delhi's support for their violent tactics. It was India which first pushed divisive agendas like 'One Madhesh', it's alleged. Narendra Modi, others reckon, is continuing with Manmohan Singh government's much-derided policy of 'controlled chaos' in Nepal; only the modus operandi, in their enlightened view, has changed.
Let's start with some ground realities. First, India has legitimate security concerns vis-à-vis Nepal, and particularly the Tarai belt. Continued instability in the Tarai will, sooner or later, spill over into its own territories via the long, open border. A chaotic Tarai, India fears, would be a breeding ground for anti-India elements, most notably the ISI, the dreaded Pakistan military intelligence wing and for other Muslim extremist groups. So instability on its border is not, in any way, in India's interest. That does not of course preclude the possibility of infiltration of protests by criminal elements—often aided and abetted by Indian spies—from across the border.
Second, even as the Kathmandu intelligentsia refuses to accept the hard truth of the centrality of Nepal in the perceived Indian sphere, the rest of the world always has. Back in 1955, when King Mahendra wanted to establish diplomatic contact with China, the Middle Kingdom had first sought New Delhi's go-ahead. Today, as economic cooperation between the two powers deepens, China is even more unlikely to rile India over Nepal. In fact, the Americans, the Europeans, or any other member of the international community which wants to engage Nepal first seeks to allay the strategic concerns of New Delhi.
Third, it is true that India supported the first Madheshi Uprising in 2007, and it also supports the ongoing protests in the Tarai belt. But providing moral support to protests and playing an active part in instigating violence are two different things. Even if the Indian spies are again up to no good, they can, at best, only add a little fuel to the already raging flames. In our recent interview, Indian Ambassador to Nepal Ranjit Rae emphasized the importance of the right diagnosis of the disease that now afflicts Tarai. In other words, any Indian involvement there is only a symptom of the disease. The real problem is the continued marginalization of Tharus and Madheshis.
Fourth, Prime Minster Narenda Modi has since coming to power in May 2014 made a concerted effort to reach out to all political actors in Nepal, including Nepali Congress and CPN-UML. So it would not be right to suggest that India only engages Madheshi parties. True, India has a soft spot for Madheshis and it will as such always support their aspiration for dignified existence inside Nepal. Even so, compared to past, India has been much more careful about taking sides in the constitutional debate this time.
Fifth, the Indian political establishment is not as obsessed with Nepal as some of our commentators like to believe. In our interview, the Indian ambassador was rather worried at the way the Indian press had by and large ignored the important developments in Nepal. In another foreign policy debate on the Indian government-operated Rajya Sabha TV that I was watching over Youtube the other day, the half hour program devoted less than a minute to Nepal. In fact, the panelists came around to very briefly discussing Nepal only after they were done with the likes of the US, China, Pakistan, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Russia. That does not mean Nepal is not important for India. Far from it.
As S.D. Muni and C. Raja Mohan write in International Studies: "Achieving the objective of becoming one of the principal powers of Asia will depend entirely on India's ability to manage its own immediate neighborhood." With this broader goal in mind, Modi has, compared to Manhoman Singh, undoubtedly made more of a push for political engagement with Nepal.
So how will India respond to recent developments in the Tarai? Part of the problem with the Madheshi parties is that although the agendas they have raised are popular among common Madheshis, Madheshis don't trust their leaders enough. Many Madheshi leaders were badly discredited during their repeated terms in government. Thus the movement for the rights of the Madheshi people has become leaderless, and therein is the danger. With mainstream actors losing control, extremist elements have been able to infiltrate the protests. They would like to see nothing more than an escalation of the standoff between Madhesh and Kathmandu.
This is why it is important to arrive at broadly acceptable political solutions. If not, they could be imposed. Again, for India, the main concern in Nepal is peace and stability. This, it will look to ensure at any cost. Given, in an international order governed on the basis of realpolitik, the single-minded pursuit of national interest can make for strange bedfellows. For instance India first propped up the Nepali Maoists as a cushion against the authoritarian monarch, but in the next instant shattered the Maoist party organization when its purpose was served. This was again done in pursuit of the perceived Indian national interest. Such actions have at times added to India's negative image in Nepal. But India is also bang on when it insists that its genuine security concerns in Nepal must be recognized by Kathmandu.
Sadly, neither the establishment parties (which decided to blithely push ahead with the constitutional process in the Constituent Assembly) nor the opposition forces (with their threats of secession and racial stereotyping of Pahade leaders) seem to be in a mood for a peaceful settlement that would be in everyone's interest, including India. If we can't keep our own house in order, it's useless to blame others of meddling.
biswasbaral@gmail.com
Related story
_20191222200001.jpg)
