OPINION (Spotlight Weekly)

Nepal, India and SAARC

BY MADHAV KUMAR RIMAL

At the dawn of the new millennium, Nepal is standing at the cross roads. The democratic regime restored at the fag end of the last millennium after a violent struggle that took away many precious lives has failed to meet even a small fraction of the aspirations of poor Nepalese. In a little more than ten years after the restoration, the overwhelming majority of the Nepalese who live below the poverty line have become totally disillusioned of the corrupt leadership that rules the country. Not only has a handful of leaders belonging to the ruling parties become sickly rich, the country's economy has been totally shattered, the nation too has lost its image in the international arena. The rampant corruption openly practised by ministers, parliamentarians and bureaucrats has sucked the country dry. So much so that a small section of patriotic leftists calling themselves Maoists have started violence against the government and in the last ten years many officials, security personnel, politicians and the Maoists themselves have lost their lives. Starting with a couple of districts in the hilly west they have spread their activities into almost twenty districts and have started their forays even into the capital itself. The morale in the security forces (the police force) has sunk so low that many (officers included) have deserted their posts. Those being transferred to those areas refuse to go and would rather resign. Since the politicians in power have failed to command respect and their intentions too are suspect the problem is far from being tackled successfully. The majority of the Nepalese seem to be against using the army, as it may engulf the whole country into a civil war. The Koirala government is in a fix and facing an uncertain future. People are clamoring for the dismissal of the government. And the king has been forced to start meeting peoples from different cross sections of the society so as to decide his next step.

The dreams the poor Nepalese harbored that the democratic regime would work in their interest and their grinding poverty would be alleviated to some extent have been very badly smashed. The corrupt politicians have not only given a bad name to democracy but generated a kind of disillusionment in the mind of the common man. He has started remembering the old Panchayat days with nostalgia. While these democratic leaders are crying hoarse that some invested interests are trying to destroy democracy, the truth is that their unscrupulous and anti-national behavior has put a big question mark on the efficacy of multiparty democracy in Nepal. More than a decade long misrule by the multi-party democratic leaders has brought to the fore a serious debate whether the country is yet ready to accept this kind of regime.

The multi party democracy has not failed at the home front only. Even in Nepal's relations with her neighbors and friendly donors further away our politicians and statesmen have shown only immaturity, lack of vision and imagination. Many a time Kathmandu based senior diplomats and multi-national agencies have transgressed their diplomatic etiquette and expressed their displeasure on the non-performance of the governments. Despite the facts that India has shown greater intimacy with the Nepali Congress leadership and the senior leaders of the Nepali Congress swell with pride calling themselves portages of the Indian politicians, the Nepali Congress government have not succeeded to build up a fair and just working relationship with the Indians. Still their whole focus is on developing more intimate relationship with India only. They have not given any thoughts in strengthening relations with other South Asian countries — Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka who are very important members of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation — a bad rock for Nepal's speedy economic development.

The old concept of Nepal being a yam between two boulders must change after the technological revolution that has gripped the whole world. In an age when man is targeting to cultivate the Moon and reach the Mars, when countries have armed themselves with nuclear weapons and distance reduced to insignificance size and situation of countries have become factors of no importance for their physical survival. Even the hackneyed philosophy of affinities have turned out to become nothing more than pleonasm. Since every nation, big or small, is obsessed with safeguarding its own interest there can be no room for charity and magnanimity in bilateral relations between two countries. And in state to state relationship there can be no permanent friends or permanent foes. As such Nepal also must be able to adapt her policies to suit the changed global and regional technological, political and economic environment. And this calls for a strong, honest and patriotic leadership. Unfortunately Nepal always lacked leadership that could have given her the thrust that is so indispensable to embark upon the road to progress and development. During the last more than one decade after the restoration of democracy, the political leadership has not only been weak and directionless but most corrupt, unscrupulous and undemocratic. Instead of taking the country forward, it has shattered the economy pushed the country to the brink of a civil war and turned it into a play ground for anti-national elements. As a result, the political instability that has plagued the country has endangered. the very democratic regime to restore which many a precious life was sacrificed. If democracy in Nepal is to be preserved and turned robust, the one man who can do it is the king. As resorts go, he is greatly concerned at the situation prevailing in the country and despite his firm faith in constitutional monarchy may be forced to take steps indispensable to safeguard the integrity of the country. If the reports are correct, he must not hesitate to take timely action because "procrastination is the thief of time. He must understand that it is his responsibility and history will hold him accountable if disaster befalls this nation.

India's attitude towards Nepal needs a drastic change if bilateral relations between the two countries are to be cemented firmly. The old rhetorics of commonalties have miserably failed to instill faith and confidence so very essential for a sincere and strong relationship. As a matter of fact, affinities and commonalties are shaky foundations for building a strong and durable understanding. Meaningful bilateral relations between Nepal and India did actually start from the date India attained independence from her colonial master — The British — fifty three years ago. The goody goody rhetorics of relations dating from times immemorial are nothing but mere figment of imagination.

Keeping in view the sharp discrepancies between the two countries, special care has to be taken from both sides not to hurt the sensibilities. Nepal because of her vulnerabilities is at the receiving end. And the Indian establishment at Delhi has not yet been able to completely hake off the hangover of near two centuries of British rule. This mindset of the South Block bureaucrats is proving to be a big impediment in stabilizing the bilateral relations on an even keep for a substantially longer period. The occasional pinpricks not only provoke the sensitivities of the Nepalis but keep on reminding them of their severe handicaps.

The galloping rise in the population due to the high birth rate and the methodically planned unlawful influx of people from across the border has not only aggravated the nations poverty but has started posing threats to the very integrity of the country. The Bhutanese seem to be wiser to read the writing on the wall. If they started ethnic cleansing they had a reason for it. Who knows, in the years to come Nepal may get to the situation when she would be facing similar problem. The traditionally open border between Nepal and India has started causing many serious problems to both the countries including server security threats. India's obsession that Pakistan's I.S.I agents are using the Nepalese territory to destabilise situations in India leaves no option for Nepal but to close the open border. The sooner it is achieved, the better for both the countries. Nepalese statesmen must start giving serious consideration on this issue as this has direct links with the more volatile problem of Indo-Pakistan relations. And normalization of relations between India and Pakistan cannot be possible as long the issue of Kashmir is resolved. In Kashmir India did commit a blunder in making its ruler sign the instrument of accession. It not only violated the cordinal principle on which the partition of the subcontinent was accomplished, it has also embroiled her in a struggle for the last fifty odd years from which she can neither extricate herself nor can hold on Sine Die. The men, money and materials that have been wasted there could have alleviated the poverty of millions of her poor people. May be, if there were not Kashmir problem, she would not have fought the three wars with Pakistan.

Why Nepalese politicians and statesmen shy away speaking on the Kashmir issue is, indeed, quite intriguing. As a matter of fact, as a close and good friend of both India and Pakistan, Nepal must have made sincere endeavors for making some contribution (howsoever small) towards resolving the imbroglio. Since the issue has been directly affecting the regions progress and development adversely for decades, it has to be resolved as early as possible, not in the interest of one nation only but in the interest of the whole region. It has become more imperative since both the belligerents have become nuclear powers and the scare of nuclear conflagration threatens the security of all the smaller countries. The end of the cold are has ushered in a marked revolution in international relations. Countries thousands of miles away do not stay as silent spectators when even a small community is subjected to unjust tyranny. The growing emphasis on safe guarding human rights has impelled stronger power to directly interfere even in the internal affairs of a sovereign country. The people of Kashmir have suffered as not other people in the world have suffered for more than five decades. Unless the problem is resolved soon, no one can say for sure, for how long this dispute will drag on, why should the people of Kashmir be denied their birth right to choose their own destiny? Scores of thinkers, politicians and statesmen, even in India, have started advocating plebiscite in Kashmir. Vasant Sathe, a senior ex-minister and Congress leader said sometime back, "I think we as a nation have bungled over the entire Kashmir issue for the last fifty years. It is time for us to honestly tell the people in the he valley that they should decide their fate through a referendum once and for all" (Times of India, New Delhi 12 Sept. 2000) Another thinker Swaminatham Anklesaria has said, " We have spent over 50 years trying to build a nation on liberal values. Let us remain faithful to those values rather than legalisms like accession treaties. Let us have a plebiscite." Perhaps all the Indians that matter also know well that there is no alternative to plebiscite in Kashmir. Had that been taken at the early stage, it may not have generated any ripples. Now, with so many problems and fissiparous tendencies plaguing, it is likely to beget a chain reaction which may jeopardize the very integrity of the country. As such, India is in a very unenviable predicament.

India's obstinate persistence that this problem has to be resolved bilaterally by India and Pakistan only has aggravated the miseries of the Kashmiri people. Left to themselves neither of them will compromise to arrive at a solution. In the interest of over a billion poor people of the region all the champions of human rights in the world must join hands to bring peace in the region by solving this vexing problem at the earliest.

Perhaps, one of the prime objectives of establishing the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was to bring peace to the region by bringing India and Pakistan closer and in continuous inter-action. The persisting differences between these two bigger members are proving to be big bottle necks in making SAARC a really vibrant organization. India as the dominant power really holds the key to the development of SAARC. Since the success or failure of SAARC may not affect India as it would the smaller members, India's lukewarm attitude has been causing this organization a great setback. The smaller members are fully aware of the reasons for her insouciance. Hurting the smaller members would not be in India's ultimate interests. If India is to earn the sincere good will of her smaller neighbors she cannot afford to overlook the speedy development of SAARC. Her obduracy not to participate in the SAARC summit has not contributed to enhance her image. Of course, the Summit could not be held, and if the stalemate is permitted to continue longer it may poison the atmosphere further. Without the wider SAARC umbrella, the smaller nations of South Asia will not be able to withstand the stiff global economic and commercial competition. Nepal in particular with her physical vulnerabilities and the least developed economy will be left with insurmountable problems. Lifting up trade restrictions by India, opening up of alternative trade routes via Bangladesh and increasing trade with Tibet are very positive developments for Nepal in the last few years. But the snail pace progress of SAARC and the total non-functioning for more than a year have been a matter of great concern. Nepalese statesmen irrespective of their political ideologies have to sink their differences and jointly work to revitalize SAARC and strengthen it so that it may make solid contribution towards the general well being of the more than billion poor people of the region.