There are party linkages and funding aspects that connect Nepal to India - Mr. Shrish S. Rana, Political Analyst

Mr. Shrish Rana is a renowned political analyst. He has worked since the 1970s as a journalist and is contributing to various Nepalese newspapers. He has kindly accepted to give an extensive interview to The Telegraph Weekly on his personal way of analysing the political situation of Nepal on various issues related to Nepal-India relations, ranging from the roots of Nepalese nationalism to the Indian connection regarding the Maoist insurgency.

The Indian connection

As most of the Maoist leaders have been educated in India including ideologue Dr. B. Bhattarai, mostly in Benares, Lucknow, Allahabad and Delhi , they can have had contacts with the Maoist groups in India and therefore there are possible linkages with the Naxalite movement. The latter has moreover begun at Nepal India border. It was mostly decimated and became powerless, but its radicalisation increased.

The Britishers when they were ruling India defined Nepal as a Buffer State. The defence component is there. The movement also mobilized at that time Nepalese in India, and the anti British feelings turned into anti Rana sentiments. The original Nepali Congress was All India Congress. There was a theory that India should be united in a large union of 800 states that would even include Nepal. Why didn’t it happen? When King Tribhuvan went to India he could have signed any treaty if he had not been a nationalist.

There are party linkages and funding aspects that connect Nepal to India. The Ranas for example had large businesses in India.

Nepal in 1950 had a militia system whereas Indian Ghurkhas had barracks and were very well equipped. It was thought that they should replace the Nepalese army. Democratic leaders in the Congress like Dr K.I. Singh decided that the Delhi compromise was making the Revolution incomplete and continued the revolution. So he was imprisoned in Singh Durbar from where the NC ruled. The Mukti Sena were in charge of the security. K.I. Singh converted them to his cause and it was the royal army that had to control it. Therefore the concept of demobilizing army was ruined and the Mukti Sena were integrated. The military component was defeated there.

In 1998 the Indian Defence Minister said that their nuclear test was not because of Pakistan but that their number one enemy was China. Clearly Nepal lies between two nuclear powers. On which side is it then supposed to be according to the Indian strategic thought? Once it has been said that the Indian line of defence was the Himalayas, Nepal being thus clearly included in their security area. But then Nehru had to reformulate his thought.

How is such a conception reflected in politics? The treaty of Peace and Friendship signed between Nepal and India was part of what was legitimising Indian interference. Claiming the Nepalese had not respected the treaty by importing weapons from China, the Indians imposed an embargo on Nepal that lasted 16 months in 1981-1982. Every time the treaty has to be renewed, heated discussions arise.

As there is little to differentiate Nepalese citizens from Indians (cf. interview), there is almost nothing to prevent the Indian money to dominate the Nepalese economy. And as both in India and in Nepal political parties do not have to show where the money comes from, in reality black money finances the politics.

Nepal is the cornerstone of Indian strategic thinking. The official trade of India with Nepal is equivalent to the volume of the Indian-American trade and almost the same as the trade with all the ASEAN countries or all African countries. Thus their economic interests in Nepal are particularly important.

The question of Nepali waters is also to be mentioned. It is believed that a shortage of water in the Gangetic plains will occur in the following years. Therefore whereas Nepal wants high dams to have electricity, India wants to get water. The issue is particularly hot as 70% of the Indian waters all flow from Nepal.

These reasons and the Indian politics justify the Indian interest in Nepal, whereas the Indian favours can only be paid back politically by Nepal.

The Indian influence has increased in the last years, as democracy as often is equalled to pro indianism: competitive political parties and an open economy over which the Indians can have a strong influence. By these means they could have a direct impact on political organisations and even subvert politics in Nepal.

All India had to do in this context would have been to give money and shelter to the Maoists to increase even more their influence as the monarchy would be weakened, the Nation would be divided, Nepalese strategic capabilities would be weakened, politics could be influenced and the whole economy could be turned to India.

In spite of the traditional attempt to balance Indian influence by Chinese power, by using an additional trade route, for example, there has not been any free flow of population between Nepal and China, and the first public sectors to be privatised by "democratic" governments were those constructed by China.

Nevertheless there had been hopes, when China announced its international opening by Nepal, but in real terms, the Chinese influence has not only stagnated but also even decreased.

To sum up, nationalism in Nepal can be equalled to the support to the monarchy, as the King is the only one that can succeed in maintaining the unity of the country, whereas nothing can prevent a Parliament to vote in favour of joining India, as Sikkim did, for example.

Nowadays, as the security situation worsens, Indians are just waiting for Nepal to request for their help.

It is not the only foreign power that looks carefully at the evolution of the situation of the country. For the Americans it is also a good occasion to come to Nepal. It would not be the first time, as it is well known that the CIA, along with Indians, was funding the Khampa movement. The Indians are also aware of the strategic interest Nepal is of for the Americans and has always tried to prevent its involvement in the country. At the time all foreign missions to Nepal were maintaining libraries, the American one was the only one to be vandalized by students.

Whether or not the Indians have backed the Maoists, it is clear that they are serving theirpolitical interests. So why not backing them? The NC had launched twice an insurgency that failed and the movement has already served the Indian interests in Nepal. The Indians try to find a link between Nepal and Pakistan. It is not impossible. But it is a good way for the Indians to try to reduce Nepalese relations with Pakistan. One cannot say Pakistan is not using the Nepalese soil but maybe not to the point Indians pretend it they are doing, as it is clear that what they want most is to prevent the involvement of any third country in Nepal.

Headline | Opinion | National | Dateline | 5 Question  | Editorial | Letter | 2nd Impression | International | Past