Looming Uncertainty

The violence and instability gripping Nepal and other South Asian countries could escalate into a regional cauldron.

By KESHAB POUDEL

From the small Himalayan kingdom of Nepal to the regional colossus, India, South Asia is mired in political instability and relentless violence that could ultimately undermine the entire region's security.

South Asia's other kingdom, Bhutan, is also gripped in crisis, with its southern region reportedly being used by United Liberation Front of Assam and Bodo terrorist outfits to mount assaults in India. Although the kingdom appears politically stable now, Bhutanese refugees living in Nepal and India continue to pose a threat.

New Road street during Bandh : Violent tones

The countries to the south of the Himalayas, almost all of which have adopted the western model of democracy, are in deep political turmoil. India, the most populous democracy of the world and the dominant regional power, has democratic institutions that are capable of settling internal power disputes.

The region's instability is rooted in politics, insurgency and terrorism containing both internal and external dimensions. This is challenging legitimate state authority. As civilian authorities fail to curb the violence, the army is being deployed more frequently.

"South Asia today, thus, stands at a crossroads. It has neither a secure past nor a secure future as the present itself is textured by uncertainty," says Dhruba Kumar, a leading Nepalese analyst, in his article "Security in South Asia: A Nepali Perspective" published in Policy Studies Series 2 by the Institute of Foreign Affairs. (May 2001). "South Asia today has become a region of unending conflicts and violence," Professor Kumar asserts.

Violence and lawlessness seem to have become a common phenomenon in the region. Five days after a violent bandh in Nepal witnessed the killings of innocent people, the western Indian state of Gujarat was hit by an orgy of violence between Muslims and Hindus. In Pakistan, a fundamentalist Muslim group attacked a mosque worshipped by another religious group in Rawalpindi. Although the nature and scope of these acts of violence are different, they have generated similar psychological trauma in the countries affected.

At a time when South Asian countries are struggling to combat internal violence, the external situation has deteriorated. The tension between India and Pakistan continues to dominate world politics. Western countries, including the sole super power, the United States, have been working to prevent a war between the two nuclear-armed rivals. The military tension along India-Pakistan border, following the terrorist attack in the Indian parliament in December last year, is yet to subside.

To the north of the Himalayas, China, which shares borders with Nepal, Bhutan, India, and Pakistan, is politically stable under communist rule. China's experience will determine how successfully liberal economic policies can be pursued under an authoritarian political system.

The United States and other western powers have long ignored the violence in Nepal, in the belief that it contained purely internal dimensions. Diplomats from the United States and other western countries even issued statements accusing the authorities of encouraging violence in Nepal.

Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, however, the United States and western European countries have been expressing solidarity with Nepal. The visit of US Secretary of State Colin Powell and expressions of concern from other western powers over the last three months underscore how the dimensions of violence in Nepal has extended beyond its frontiers.

After the government imposed the state of emergency and the Maoist launched deadly assaults in Achham and Salyan districts, western powers have increased their interest in the kingdom. The growing concern expressed by Washington and European powers is understandable, as escalating violence and instability in Nepal could heighten the possibility of external intervention. Such intervention from either of Nepal's two neighbors — India and China — may trigger a direct conflict between the two. Even an indirect conflict between the two Asian powers could prove to be more dangerous than the confrontation between India and Pakistan.

Foreign-relations experts say the recent visit of British Foreign Office Minister Ben Bradshaw to Nepal and US Ambassador Michael E. Malinowski trip to Achham and Salyan are clear indicators of Nepal's geo-strategical importance. Another senior US diplomat, A. Peter Burleigh, spoke more candidly about US concerns over the possibility of a prolonged confrontation.

"[W]hen situations arise that challenge that positive world order, and which can be addressed by a collective response, it is the responsibility and obligation of all of our countries to come together to restore and preserve the peace," said Ambassador Malinowski in an address to a seminar on South Asian Peace Operations. "Here in Nepal, as we all know, there is no peace. But I do believe that there are lessons for both those of us who live in Nepal and for the international community," he said.

Nepal's Position in South Asia Nepal has been ensnared in political instability following the restoration of democracy in 1990. After the Maoist insurgency began in 1996, the kingdom's economic, security and political processes have been thrown into a tangle.

According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, Nepal has a length of 885-km (east-west) and a non-uniform mean width of 193-km (north-south). The kingdom shares a frontier of more than 1400 km with China in north and more than 1600 km with India in the east, west and south.

The Nepal-India border is open and easy to cross. Although the frontier with China is more or less open, it straddles rugged mountain terrain. It is impossible to build border posts along the border with either country.

Therefore, the geographical position of Nepal has been psychologically threatening to both neighbors.

"China appears very sensitive towards activities against her in neighboring countries, including Nepal. China's security concern is indicated from [the visits of its] defense minister, senior army officials and home ministry officials from time to time," says Hiranya Lal Shrestha, a foreign relations expert in his article "Nepal-India Relations: Security Issue" published in Policy Study Series by the Institute of Foreign Affairs (November 2000).

"At the same time, we cannot overlook the weaknesses of a landlocked state. Indian security perception regards the Himalayas as its sphere of influence. Since 14.9 percent of Nepal's territory lies to the north of the Himalayas, we may have to be divided into two spheres of influence if the northern neighbour also puts forward similar logic concerning its security perception. Nepal, in brief, does not want to remain under anyone's sphere of influence," says Shrestha.

Be it the British Raj or independent India, Chinese influence in Nepal has always been a matter of concern to leaders of the south neighbor. In the book, "Life of Brian Houghton Hodgson, the British Resident at the Court of Nepal", William Wilson Hunter mentions how the British government was worried about Nepal's relations with China in 18th century.

"But my situation by no means so agreeable as it might be if these barbarians did but know their own good. Instead of which they are insolent and hostile and play off on us, as far as they can dare, the Chinese etiquette and foreign polity. The Celestial Emperor is their idol, and, by the way, whilst I write, the  [Nepalese] sovereign himself is passing by the Residency in all royal pomp to go three miles in order to receive a letter which has just reached Nepal from Pekin. There they go! Fifty chiefs on horseback, royalty and royalty's advisors and on eight elephants and three thousand troops before and behind the cavalcade! They have reached the spot. The Emperor's letter, enclosed in a cylinder covered with brocade, hangs round the neck of a chief; who mounted on a spare elephant, is placed at the head of the cavalcade, and the cortege," writes Hodgson in a letter.

This reflected how assertive and powerful the Chinese were in the internal dimensions of Nepalese politics in the 18th century. After independence, Indian leaders have been equally concerned about security issues, considering Nepal and Tibet to be the soft underbelly of their own country's security. "This is altogether more inexplicable when one examines the rapidity with which Nehru reacted to events in Nepal in the mid-fifties, forcefully intervening there to restore the Nepalese monarchy. Nepal and Tibet were both Himalayan kingdoms, both were of vital strategic importance to India, and they were both afflicted, almost simultaneously, whether externally or internally, and yet India and its political leadership reacted differently," writes Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh in his book "Defending India".

Referring to India's security, Indian Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru once observed: "Now our interest in the internal conditions of Nepal became still more acute and personal, if I may say so, because of the developments in China and Tibet, to be frank. And regardless, of our feelings about Nepal, we were interested in our country's border. We have had from immemorial time a magnificent frontier, that is to say, the Himalayas are concerned, and they lie on the other side of Nepal. Therefore, the principal barrier to India lies on the other side of Nepal. Therefore, the principal barrier to India lies on the other side of Nepal and we are not going to tolerate any person coming over that barrier. Therefore, much as we appreciate the independence of Nepal, we cannot risk our own security by anything going wrong in Nepal."

For his part, Li Peng, the chairman of China's National People's Congress, openly expressed China's security concerns in Nepal during the visit of Sher Bahadur Deuba in 1998 as a former prime minister.

South Asia has three nuclear powers, India, China and Pakistan. Two powers, China and India, are competing for the status of regional power. Any form of direct confrontation between China and India in the south of the Himalayas will have far-reaching consequences.

"In the field of Nepal's security concern, Nepal and India have to come to an understanding where they oblige each other of responding to perception of threat and create measures to the minimization of any threat," writes former foreign minister Shailendra Kumar Upadhyaya in his book "Tryst with Diplomacy".

"At the same time Nepal has to provide sufficient assurance to its northern neighbor China that Nepalese soil would not, under any circumstances, be used against China — particularly the Tibet Autonomous Region. This is a must in the interest of piece and political stability in Nepal and it would be as well in the interest of India which would ultimately receive all the bad effect of the spill over of political instability and unrest in Nepal," Upadhyaya writes.

Amid growing political instability and violence in the region, development issues in Nepal seems to have been pushed to the back burner. Will the concern demonstrated by the international community help to build regional stability? The answer will influence Nepal's progress and prosperity.