The obstruction at the Nepal-India border crossings occasioned by what Nepal Government and public media in the country have characterized as 'trade blockade' by India brings to my memory a largely unnoticed piece of news more than four decades ago. It was one related to China-opening visit by US President Richard Nixon in February 1972. I recall one cartoon appearing in the New York Times after a few days of Nixon's stay in China that showed President Nixon sitting with Mao Zedong and Mao telling him: 'Why don't you just bus them?'This advice was given to Nixon in the context of ongoing protests by white parents in predominantly white suburbs of Boston against mandated busing of school kids to other neighborhoods to help with school integration. The Federal government had been bound by Supreme Court decision in April 1971 to implement integration by busing the school kids—at times using force—across neighborhoods.
However, irrespective of court ruling, the government couldn't just ignore the protesting parents and send troops to load and unload kids to and from their designated schools. Government needed some understanding from parents to meet court order and also satisfy parents. It took a decade of strenuous balancing act by federal government and school officials to go ahead with school integration without violence and clashes.
Fast forward the clock 45 years to Nepal-India border where trade movements have been obstructed since mid-August resulting in severe shortages of supplies from India, the main source of imports of items of daily use. It is easy to see the havoc trade interruption with India is causing to people in Nepal, on the top of the devastation caused by earthquakes a few months earlier.
Defying solution
The Nixon-Mao example above can be used to explain why it has been so difficult for the two sides to resolve differences and end suffering. India has repeatedly denied that it has done anything to impede the trade and, instead, has attributed disruptions to unstable situation in Nepal. Nepal government, on the other hand, denies that law and order problem is causing trade interruption, insisting that India has turned a blind eye by not acting against elements that have behaved unlawfully to block trade.
Based on available information, there is no evidence to support that Indian government is involved in trade interruption. The interruption has ensued from protests by Madheshi residents who occupy the no-man's-land and a stretch extending into India. Thousands of people take turns to block the protest area for vehicular traffic which Nepal Government has no jurisdiction to forcibly clear. India has also shown no inclination to use force to do so.
The issue here is the level of maturity each country has developed in dealing with civil issues as separate from law and order problem meriting the use of force. Despite the outward appearance of democratization, Nepal continues to maintain a trigger-happy approach to solving law and order problems, which very much fits Mao's solution to Nixon's school-busing mentioned above: make use of government power to force acquiescence from the public.
Instead, what Nixon was looking for was a people's solution to the busing problem. However, given the distinctive backgrounds of Mao and Nixon, it was impossible for them to see the problem and solution in a similar fashion. Of course, Maoist legacy played a prominent role in solving the Tiananmen problem in 1989, when Chinese Army drove tanks over protesting demonstrators, crushing them en masse. It is inconceivable that law and order officials in America could resort to such extreme measures to control a civil protest.
Looking at the Nepal-India stand-off, Nepali protestors chose to camp-out on transport route along the common border, at places stretching into Indian Territory. Ordinarily, such protests should have been launched inside Nepal, in the plain view of Nepali officials to force a dialogue. But, in doing so, protestors faced great risk, not just of being beaten up and getting arrested but also getting shot at point-blank range without the due process.
Such violent response by security officials has seldom been to control crowds in Nepal which, in most instances, have been nonviolent. Civil protests have always been orderly and peaceful, with no sign of protestors dressing up in fighting uniform as, for example, Korean demonstrators appeared to be doing when facing riot police.
Respecting diversity
A different and, indeed, very troubling aspect of protest management in the Nepali context has been to shoot protestors at sight, not just to arrest and beat them. Because Pahade intellectuals, politicians and public media have hyped India's pseudo-invasion of Nepal's sovereignty using Madhesi and Bihari goons, security command, it seems, has given almost a free-hand to riot police to decide when to shoot. Commanding officials facing the crowd have taken full advantage of this, shooting protestors at the point-blank range with complete abandonment and recklessness.
Indeed media photos flashed out around the world of border stand-off show an all-Madheshi crowd facing a non-Madheshi security force in full-military gear, standing just a few yards away from the sitting and chatting protestors. This use of force intended to cow down the Madheshi crowd poses ultimate threat to ethnic coexistence and reconciliation and restoration of law and order.
The other not so talked about aspect is the ethnic make-up of police and military force. There is hardly a Madheshi native employed by these services if we exclude Madheshi cooks, cleaners and barbers. From the outward appearance of police, Nepal may be the least ethnically diverse security force in the world, more monolithic even compared to, for example, Israel.
Israel offers a relevant, contradictory comparison. According to one recent New York Times report, of 30,000 police personnel in Israel, 2,500 are Palestinian natives, 300 of them of officer rank. The number is not quite at par with Palestinian share of Israeli population but very respectable, especially considering the depth of ethnic mistrust in Israel.
The recent instances of random stabbings of civilians by Palestinian Israelis can't be imagined from Madheshi natives. Indeed, in the background of almost a decade-long occurrence of ethnic skirmishes, there has not been a single case of Madheshi violence against Pahade civilians. It is then inconceivable why Nepal government wouldn't trust Madhesis with guns, by keeping them away from security forces.
Isolation and exclusion of Madheshis from national mainstream looks advantageous in short-run but it isn't sustainable. Madheshis must feel they have a stake in aligning with the Nepal State and are trusted with safeguarding its sovereignty, including resisting rough-handling by India. Ethnic accommodation at the level, for example, of Switzerland will turn Madheshis into committed defenders of national interest, which no amount of Pahade militancy to face India can match.
sshah1983@hotmail.com
Related story
Failure to call blockade a blockade caused poll defeat: Dr Koir...
