Prolonged political instability and growing violence in Nepal is a grave concern not only for us but also for international community including Nepal ’s two powerful neighbors. Everybody wants relief from violence, uncertainty and wants to see the revival of democratic process. But it seems elusive in the regional context when Nepal ’s internal issue is linked to strategic and security concerns of Nepal ’s neighbors. Nepal remained a peaceful buffer state during the whole British colonial period guaranteeing the stability in the region. Sandwiched between two major powers India and China , policymakers in Nepal , a small Himalayan Kingdom , have pursued a foreign policy merely to survive as an independent and sovereign nation. Unlike its two big neighbors, Nepal has very limited options in formulating foreign policy. This might be the reason Badamaharaj Prithivi Narayan Shah, founder of modern Nepal , aptly termed Nepal as a yam between two boulders. From Badamaharaj to first elected prime minister B.P.Koirala and late King Birendra –who were the three most important architects of Nepalese foreign policy – all pursued the foreign policy safeguarding Nepal ’s sovereignty and independence. At a time when Nepal ’s violent conflict and prolonged political instability seems to have no immediate solution, we decided to see why it is always difficult to live between two powerful neighbors in this week’s cover story.
This is the irony of geo-political situation that every enlightened person in Nepal discuss about their neighbors’ affairs but none of the people in the neighboring countries see problems of Nepal as serious enough to be included in their national agenda. Whether it is in peace or during hostile relationship with Nepal , the issue is left to their respective governments whereas this become life and death question of every Nepalese. Nepal has been a stable and, therefore, a peaceful country for a long time compared to other buffer states in the region. The peace and stability in Nepal helped both the big neighbors as it assured them of their security. During the British colonial period, the same was not the case with Afghanistan , which always remained unstable and, therefore, strained its neighbors over the matter of security. If Nepal follows the trend set by Afghanistan , it will be impossible to have same normal relations between two big powers bordering Nepal . As long as stability is there in Nepal , it assures the big neighbors of their security and, therefore, the normal relations between them. An unstable Nepal will definitely create tensions and imbalances between two adjoining regional powers. Perhaps keeping that fact in mind, Indian ambassador to Nepal Shiv Shankar Mukharjee in his televised interview desired peace in Nepal . Peace is not a grace or charity towards Nepal but it is in the very selfish interest of not only India but also China . Chinese statesmen and diplomats have also, all the time, been giving prominence to Nepal ’s peace and stability. But mere wishes have no meaning if they do not come into practice.
Because of the contradictions between thirteen government coalition parties in India , the contradictions in the statements of politicians and diplomats of that country also creeps in. One cannot wish peace in Nepal by instigating conflict between the regime and its opponents. A much used and misused ‘China Card’ was already there in the circulation. In the recent edition was ‘India Card’ available to opposition, too. This kind of grudges and grumbling do not promote required trust or confidence to maintain peace and stability. The reconciliation between the King and the organized political forces are necessary to resume the democratic process. Indian government, through its envoy and high officials, has often expressed this. Unfortunately, representatives of ruling parties of India come to Nepal and instigate seven agitating parties to fight against monarchy. They added the fuel recently predicting that the ‘Loktantara’ (which is being defined as a republic by India-educated scholars in Nepal ) would be established within a month. A month has passed and nothing has come except the distrust and mistrust between the King and the organized political parties in Nepal . If that kind of statement has any backing of the government in the south, one can very well guess how the other country interested in the security of Nepal would react. Such prophets and harboring of cold war are harmful not only to Nepal but they are equally harming their own interest in the region.
As Canadian prime minister Paul Martin recently said, “To the reticent nations including the United States , I had said there is such a thing as a global conscience. And now is the time to listen to it.” Translating that spirit in our terms, one can say there is such a thing as a regional conscience and now it is time to listen to it. And in the regional context, both the countries need peace and stability to catch up with developed world. It is just stupid to remain fixated on contradictions while vast areas of cooperation and coexistence have been extended by global situations. Passing through a very critical and difficult time, Nepal ’s peace, stability and progress lies in the type of relations existing between two neighbors. If two big giants reconcile, the result will be peace, stability and prosperity in Nepal . If they are in mood for confrontation, no one can prevent chaos.
