Neighbors Are Not Chosen
As it has two big neighbors, Nepal has to live with them whatever the circumstances and situations may come
By KESHAB POUDEL
As it says, one can change the friends but it cannot change the neighbors however the good and bad relations with them and a country must learn the art of leaving with its neighbors.
Nepal has only two neighbors - India and China whereas each of its two neighbors has no less than half a dozen of neighbors. Moreover, each of these two neighbors shares longest border than with Nepal. But, whenever there is any rift of competitions, seen and unseen, Nepal, a small and immediate neighbor of both India and China, has to suffer.
As the relations between Nepal’s two neighbors are still under the influence of 1962 incident and their bilateral relations, despite several rounds of high level meetings and various efforts of confidence building, have not yet come to fully normal and cordial, Nepal continues to face difficulties generated by their seen and unseen competitions.
Even during the period of acute cold war and after the World War II, the former Soviet Union and the countries of Western European had a regular train service as well as the network of other means of transport. However, such kinds of arrangement are still unimaginable between Nepal’s two neighbors India and China and a situation of cold war attitude still prevails between them. As their close neighbors, both India and China cannot close their relationship with Nepal.
“As uneasy partners, they have strategic eyes on Nepal’s position. While considering any political move from either side, those backgrounds of animosity cannot be ignored. Whatever may come, Nepal has to live with them,” said a political analyst.
India is gradually moving to achieve the status of super power demanding permanent membership with veto power in United Nations Security Council. However, the status of a super power is not only strength for dominating role but a liability also. To be generous and helpful to the peace and progress beyond its notational boundary is important role of such power. The recent example is of Japan - which has assumed such role helping and generous beyond its border. Nepal’s southern neighbor India has to introspect where it is lagging behind.
Changing Context
The world’s situation has changed a lot over the last four decades and powerful and influential new variables have emerged in the political and strategic context of Nepal.
Much water has poured from rivers of Nepal as well as India after the decade of 1960s when India had dominating influences on both pro-Panchayat and anti-Panchayat forces. Nepal lost much due to that division in the country and India too had no lasting gain out of that except a temporary settlements on security issues.
At present moment, political variables have changed and the world has shrunk into a big village, western countries and especially the United States of America have decisive presence not only in India but in Nepal also.
Moreover, Nepal was unknown to the people in those countries in 1960s. Now a day several world agencies under United Nations and several governmental programs of third countries from Japan to the west are running in Nepal. Thus, Nepal is not only the concern of the immediate neighbors but it is a matter of concern far away. In such a situation, if any of its neighbors opt to create disruptions and discord, it can destroy peace and stability of the country but none of these neighbors can maintain domineering role forever.
“Yes, Nepal is handicapped by its geography but a fact remains that none of the countries can undo the geography and change Nepal as a neighbor,” said a political analyst. The fact is very clear –which applies to all that you can change the friend not a neighbor.”
Visit of Wrong Timing
Recent visit to Nepal by a team of Indian politicians has shattered the hope of reconciliation as they added more confusions and confrontations. Whether the visit was goodwill to Nepal or provoking agitation have not properly been explained, the timing and posture of arrival of Indian political delegation had unnecessarily arouse suspicions over the role of India. The visit has not at all enhanced the prestige and goodwill of India in Nepal.
“We came here not to interfere in Nepal’s internal affairs. Our intention is just to evaluate the political situation in the country. It is up to the people of Nepal to decide what kinds of political system they want,” said Sitaram Yachuri, leader of CPI-M, a coalition partner of United People’s Front.
Whatever pious intentions Indian politicians might have, the way of their presentation in the crisis and conflict ridden trouble country added fuel in the fire. With the visit and their comments, political atmosphere has changed as other side found good reason to brand substantial section of democratic forces in Nepal as pro-Indian and promoting India’s hegemonic interests.
“Leaders of political parties are working as an agent of foreign country inviting openly Indian leaders to interfere in the internal affairs of Nepal,” said former chief of the army and member of Raj Parishad Sathchit Sumsher Rana. “ The recent event showed that leaders of political parties are anti-national,” said Rana, who is considered as extremist rightist.
At a time when reconciliation between monarchist and democratic forces is being pressed from powerful internal and external public opinions, the role played by visiting Indian political team has shattered the chances of compromise for a long period of time. “When Indian politicians arrived in Nepal, many Nepalese cautiously watched their visit hoping that they were here to encourage harmony and understanding between the conflicting forces. However, the way Indian politicians spoke at the press meet creating the rift between monarch and political parties indicating that they were in a promotional trip to promote Indian strategic interest in Nepal,” said an analyst.
Instead of being persuasive, five members Indian team appeared provocative and disruptive. “Our solidarity is with the five agitating political parties and we will support the agitation directed to restore the democracy in Nepal,” said Yachuri, leader of CPI-M.
Different Voices
At a time when some Indian politicians like Yachuri and his comrades were pushing the confrontation, a realistic and patriotic Indian scholar like Sunanda K. Datta Ray who do not mind to speak real politick between Nepal and India.
“Though these attempts to escape the rigorous of real politick were destined to fail, it is impossible not to sympathize with the sovereign aspiration of a small landlocked country that inspired them. But there is no way that India will forgo its security in the Himalayas. In any case India not uphold lofty political principles at the cost of its national interest. The only consideration is: who can govern most effectively and restore peace and stability so that India’s security is not jeopardized,” writes Sunanda K. Datta-Ray in his recent article published in The Times of India ( September 26,2005).
Reconciliation is not only between the national forces but it has to be between country’s also and particularly with India. Nepal needs to pursue a policy of co-existence and reconciliation.
“Let, conscientious people like Sundanda K.Dutta Ray create an atmosphere to promote reconciliation between the national boundaries. Unfortunately, it seems that there is no sign of such reconciliation.
Although the rifts between the monarchists and democratic side have further widened, there is no way for them other than to accept each other’s existence. It may require a great deal of tolerance from the monarchist side and they should not deviate from the need of national reconciliation. Despite external provocations, patriotic monarchist forces have to keep in mind the vast majority of democratic opinion of the country. Like leaders of political parties – who are in false dream of ruling the country without monarchy – a strong and stabilizing forces, the thinking of so called monarchist to rule the country sidelining the vast majority of democratic opinion will be equally counter productive.
Monarchy and democracy are chosen by vast majority of patriotic Nepalese as their destiny and they believe that these both the forces are not antagonist but complimentary to each other. Only the harmonious relations between Nepal’s two internal forces will guarantees the stability in Nepal.
One can choose friends but not neighbors. Being a small country, Nepal does not have capability to do tit for tat. The wisest thing would be to live defending the country’s independence realizing the limitations of a small nation between two neighbors as portrayed by Prithivi Narayan Shaha the great.
