Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

Between the Lines by Kuldip Nayar

I wish I could make out our policy on neighbours. At best, it is a reaction to what they do or do not do. We should cultivate them. But there is nothing called generosity when we come to deal with them.

Whether it is Islamabad or Dhaka, New Delhi is against showing any gesture. It awaits the problem to solve itself like the dust which eventually settles down. Even when we should take a stand, we prefer to keep quiet. The argument which I have heard from topmost government quarters is that India does not want to get involved in the affairs of its neighbours. This is what we tell Colombo which needs our assistance to check the LTTE's terrorism.

But where we have exposed ourselves the most is in Nepal. It is the worst case of our prevarication. Do we want the king or not? We cannot make up our mind.

We want monarchy but no kingship. It is only playing with words. What it means is that we would like the king to be a constitutional head like our President.

Thank God, our constitution does not provide for President's rule at the centre. Jawaharlal Nehru once explained that he did not want a dictator in India. Therefore, the writ of our Presidents - we had a couple of ambitious ones - does not run beyond the precincts of Rashtrapati Bhavan.

In Nepal, the king has himself become the constitution. We are unhappy because he does not listen to us. Some of our best supporters in that country - for example, the opposition leader and former Prime Minister G.P. Koirala - have been restricted to their home.

Our request to the king to take popular leaders into confidence has not been heeded. Yes, we have our ambassador at Kathmandu, always going back and forth for consultations with New Delhi. But he must be exasperated, helpless and even embarrassed because he has made no progress with the king.

We want the ambassador to ride two boats at the same time: put pressure on the king to restore democracy and convince the opposition that India will eventually get them back their popular rule.

However, the opposition has very little confidence in us. Even this got lessened when we gave military aid to King Gyanendra after he grabbed power one year ago in the name of improving security.

Our explanation is that the military aid was very small and we stopped it when the king did not pay any heed to our plea to move towards democracy. Still, we have never faced him with the untraced murders at the palace.

The fact is that we resumed the supply of weapons on his promise to restore democracy "before long." The king duped us because there is nothing to suggest that he wants to dismount the tiger he has chosen to ride.

Why a powerful country like India does not do something? This is the question that the Nepalese ask. One of the reasons hawked about is that if we were to jettison the king, he would go to Pakistan to get arms. I wish he would do that. Let us see what happens when the two authoritarian powers meet.

Whatever the General Pervez Musharraf government may have said in the past Islamabad cannot be so in-ept that it would give arms to Nepal. Presuming Pakistan wants to embarrass India, it can ill-afford to take on the people with yet another unpopular step. Islamabad has also to ensure who is overlooking its shoulders.

The ubiquitous Americans are always there to keep Islamabad in line. They have already said from the pulpit, the White House, that they do not approve the king for "harassing peaceful democratic forces." How can the Musharraf government do the opposite?

Even China will think twice before displeasing India when the two are already joining hands in South Asia for peace and development. All these years, Beijing has kept away from Kathmandu knowing well that New Delhi is oversensitive to foreign interference in Nepal's affairs. After all, India accepted the suzerainty of China over Tibet in no time.

The problem is with New Delhi. It does not want to displease the king on the one hand and does not like his methods of dealing with political parties on the other. India would wish to devise a formula which could please the king and the opposition at the same time. In fact, it has been vainly trying for that.

Initially, New Delhi was not unhappy over the king's takeover because it saw in it a strong action against the Maoists who had links with the naxalites in India. Washington was in tandem with New Delhi's approach. The assumption was that the king would come around soon. But it has been a futile exercise. In fact, the king has consolidated himself.

Only a few days ago did he arrest hundreds of political leaders and civil liberty activists to prevent a protest rally. In a clash with the public, the Nepalese Army killed some 21 people. Because of strong indignation abroad, the king released some known political prisoners. But the curfew in Kathmandu continues and so does the suppression of the press and dissenters. Once again Indian news channels have been stopped, along with cables. People feel increasingly insecure and abandoned.

They are not to blame because they have looked towards New Delhi in the past and they still do. It is India which has been keeping its eyes shut to the developments.

The Nepalese generally do not like the Maoists who have introduced violence to their peaceful life. True, the Maoists are today on the side of the opposition but their methodology is considered undemocratic and their ways authoritarian. Not long ago, a UN report described how the Maoists' armed conflict turned from bad to worse from 1996 _ the year when they launched their armed rebellion.

People are disappointed with the king because he has suppressed their democratic functioning. But they are not pleased with the Maoists either. They want a bit of both _ the king providing an overall umbrella and the Maoists bringing in egalitarianism in the caste-ridden society, still poor. True, New Delhi cannot march its forces into Nepal.

But it can at least criticise the king's rule and give some public evidence of support to the democratic forces.

The king should get a message that India would prefer a republic to monarchy if he did not restore democracy. I think he has already forfeited the right to rule. If he were to realise that New Delhi could go to the extent of putting its weight behind the demand for his deposition, he might mend his ways.

Job Opportunity - Jarir Marketing Co.

| News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security |
| Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries | Junior Observer |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.