[Nepal is very vital for India’s security and territorial integrity. Nepal’s strategic location makes it share borders with China, Bangladesh and sensitive areas of India’s North-East region, which are affected by insurgency. There have been reports of Indian insurgents taking shelter inside Nepal. Besides, expansion of Chinese influence in Nepal can be detrimental to India’s strategic interests. Thus, there is a need for forging close friendly relations with Nepal to avoid any untoward development.]
THE election of Jhalanath Khanal as Prime Minister of a majority Left coalition government in Nepal in early February this year is seen by the majority of observers in India as the best chance for the young republic to finish the task of writing a new Constitution and completing its peace process.
Nepal’s promising political journey, which began five years ago with the signing of the historic 12-point understanding between the Maoists and the other parties, went through twists and turns before and after the 2008 Constituent Assembly elections — and lost its way in the aftermath of the resignation of Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal or ‘Prachanda’ as Prime Minister in May 2009.
Madhav Kumar Nepal of the Unified Marxists-Leninists became Prime Minister with the support of the Nepali Congress and a number of smaller parties but the coalition’s adversarial stance towards the Maoists made the new dispensation dysfunctional from the start. Madhav Kumar Nepal’s resignation in 2010 should have paved the way for a national consensus government led by the Maoists, the largest party by far in the Constituent Assembly. However, the personal political ambitions of various leaders within the UML, the NC, and the Madhesi factions, and the Interim Constitution’s rigid rules of business, combined to produce a repeatedly enacted farce.
This involved the CA being asked to vote over and over again for the NC’s Ramchandra Poudel, who was never able to muster support from more than half of the required 300 legislators. Nevertheless, Prachanda’s withdrawal of his name and announcement that the Maoists were joining hands with the UML of Khanal, paved way for the new coalition’s easy win.
Prachanda had reportedly given up his bid for the top post as he remained adamant on integrating his armed cadres into the Nepalese army. According to some media reports, Prachanda was offered the Prime Minister’s position by the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist) — but on two conditions.
Firstly, he had to settle the number of Maoist cadres in the People’s Liberation Army to be integrated as well as the modalities of integration, and second, the division of cadres for two distinctly separate categories of integration and rehabilitation. However, Prachanda refused to accept the two conditions, and let go of the Prime Ministership — which he was extremely keen on.1
However, media reports show that Prachanda’s decision to support Jhalanath Kanal for the PM’s post had not gone down well with the section of the Maoist group led by Baburam Bhattarai. While it was not yet clear what prompted these 50 MPs to openly dissent against Prachanda, it was believed to be a combination of “personal ambitions” and an element of “course correction” of the party’s ideology. These developments have led — for the first time — cracks within the Maoist group have come to the fore. A group of Maoist MPs led by Baburam Bhattarai signed a “dissent note” on Thursday in the Nepalese parliament against Prachanda’s decision.
So far, the voice of dissent which had been observed in internal party meetings was played out in the open on the floor of the Nepalese constituent assembly the first time. According to some experts, with Prachanda still holding the key to the government as leader of the largest party in the ruling coalition, the government of Khanal does not have the “stability factor” in it.
There has been mixed reaction to the installation of Khanal government within Nepal. Puskar Lal Shrestha, senior journalist of Nepal, feels that not much can be expected of the newgovernment. According to him: “This is an unnatural coalition, which lacks the political professional spirit, and as such it can only deepen the political instability in the country.”2
Likewise, Dr. Ramesh Nath Pandey, political expert and former foreign minister has expressed his view that the agreement was signed as a commitment from both parties for unity: “It is a commitment expressed by both parties to have a unity between all the republicans, patriotic forces and communists to protect Nepal’s independence and bring the peace process to a conclusion.” Stating that the times have been difficult for the nation, he said that the nation’s future and political stability will depend on the implementation of the seven-point agreement.3
Jhalanath Khanal’s election as Prime Minister of Nepal was facilitated due to an unexpected change in the Maoists’ tactics when its supreme leader Prachanda withdrew from the prime ministerial race in favour of the chief of the rival communist party, the United Marxist Leninist (UML). This was a cleaver move based on a hurriedly arrived seven-point understanding between the Maoist and UML leaders.4 It was triggered by the surprise entry of a Madhesi (Terai) party leader, Bijay Gachhadar, into the prime ministerial race aimed at spoiling the prospects of Prachanda, securing the support of some of the Madhesi groups. If Prachanda had continued in the race the possibility of either the Nepali Congress winning the prime ministership in the second count or the stalemate persisting could not be ruled out. Thus, by his move, Prachanda not only avoided his personal defeat and frustration but also ensured a dominant say for him and his party in the running of the Khanal government under the seven-point understanding.
Prof. S.D. Muni, an Indian expert on Nepal, feels that the implementation of the understanding may not be very smooth as there are a couple of sensitive issues, particularly with regard to difficulties in the distribution of ministerial portfolios and tensions on the principle of rotation and “supervising mechanism” built into the seven points.5
The peace process pertaining to integration of Maoist armed cadres into Nepal’s security forces is a more sensitive issue. Undoubtedly, the understanding arrived at between the two leaders provide for the integration of Maoist combatants either as a “separate force” or an “alternative force combining the PLA and other security forces”, but this seemingly does not appear to be acceptable to many within Khanal’s UML or in the Nepali Congress and other parties.
While having serious reservations on any en-bloc integration of Maoist combatants into the security forces, the Nepalese Army want individual induction only after scrutiny. These reservations have played an important role in obstructing the integration process to advance as the Maoists reject the army’s position but the major political parties like the Nepali Congress, the UML and some Madhesi groups endorse it.
Past experience shows that there existed an uneasy relationship between the Maoists and the UML both parties had been main rivals and were engaged in capturing the leadership of the left in the Nepali political space. Both these groups have questioned the recently forged Dahal-Khanal alliance under the seven-point understanding. While the Madhav Kumar Nepal and K.P. Oli groups have raised objections within the UML, one of the Maoist Vice Presidents, Mr Baburam Bhattarai, submitted a written dissent to Mr Prachanda on the withdrawal of his candidacy. The Nepali Congress and the Gachhadar-led Madhesi groups may also want to see this alliance collapse.
However, Prof. Muni feels that the Maoist-UML alliancelooks far more stable than the previous UML-led government headed by Madhav Nepal and supported by the Nepali Congress. The Maoists and the UML put together have comfortable numbers on their side —- 343 in a House of 600. They also got support from fringe left groups as well as breakaway Madhesi groups from the Sadbhawana Patrty and the Tarai Madhes Loktantrik Party, taking their tally to 368 that voted for Khanal.
The experts do not rule out the possibility of Gachhadar’s rival faction led by Upendra Yadav representing Madhes joining the Khanal government to take the number nearer to a two- thirds majority in the Constituent Assembly. According to Prof. Muni, if this happens, the finalisation of the Constitution and advancing of the peace process being promised by Khanal and Dahal will be considerably facilitated and this will end the specter of uncertainty and instability in Nepal.
Relations with India
Some experts feel that installation of the Khanal government in the light of the Khanal-Dahal may not augur well for Indian diplomacy. The Indian diplomacy in Nepal has met with failures in the past as well. The first was the failure of the Karan Singh mission in April 2006, then came the “unexpected” victory of the Maoists in April 2008 elections, followed by the unprecedented rise of anti-Indianism in Nepal characterised by the pelting of stones on the Indian Ambassador, and now the formation of a Maoist-UML government.
According to one expert, the Indian diplomacy in Nepal in recent years seems to have been relying rather heavily on inept inputs of its intelligence agencies, personal prejudices and egoistic assessments of its diplomats and exaggerated obsession with China’s influence.
It was widely expected during Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao’s visit to Nepal in January this year India would accept any government there except the one to be headed by either Dahal or Khanal, the so-called pro-China communist leaders.
According to Prof. Muni, India now clearly has two options in Nepal. It can pursue its present line and work with all those domestic forces that want to pull the Khanal government down and frustrate the writing of the Constitution and completion of the peace process. This will make Nepal unstable, damage India’s long-term interests and encourage China to expand and strengthen its strategic presence there.
“As an alternative, India can attempt a course correction and encourage the Nepali Congress and other Madhesi groups to join the Khanal government and shape the Constitution making and peace processes in a more constructive direction. A broad-based coalition will naturally reflect national consensus, restraint the dominant communist alliance from taking the polity solely in their chosen direction and make governance more democratic and responsive.”6
In a recent interview with an Indian newspaper The Hindu, Prime Minister of Nepal, Jhalanath Khanal said that his government will work to strengthen relations with the rest of the world in the new context. This’ll begin with neighbours. He stated his aim would be to develop this relationship and deepen the cooperation with India.
On being asked whether he had any message to Indian policy makers about Napal policy, the Nepalese Prime Minister said: “It’s up to the Indian policymakers to review their Nepal policy, how is it conducted and how much India has benefited from it. What I want to say is that our bilateral relations are deep and friendly and there should be cooperation across sectors. But while doing that, we should respect each other’s independence, sovereignty and interests. We may be small or big, but we are equal. That has to be the guiding principle and sentiment in building the relationship. If we move forward like that, then the anti-India sentiment that is sometimes seen in Nepal will disappear on its own.”7
With regard to his government’s approach to India’s security interests, the Nepalese Prime Minister said: “We never forget we are in the middle of two big neighbours. Some of the criminal acts that we see here in Nepal may be related to India’s interests sometimes. We’re aware of India’s security interests. During my tenure, I’ll try my best to address these concerns.”8
Conclusion
A peaceful and stable Nepal is crucial for India. The new government which has assumed power should be extended full cooperation in carrying out its developmental activities to promote peace and stability in the country and at the same time authorities in Nepal should ensure that the territory of Nepal is not allowed for conducting anti-India activities. Owing to its strategic proximity to China and Beijing’s strategy to expand its pshere of influence in Nepal, India should pursue a cautioned policy that does not create any misgivings within Nepal and at the same time keep the Chinese influence under check.
References
- Shubhajit Roy, “Prachanda backs new PM, India worried”, Indian Express, 7 February 2011.
- Punjita Pradhan, “Leaders and experts express mixed reaction over Nepal’s political situation”, Xinhua News Agency, 14 February 2011, available athttp://www.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2010-02/14/c_13731274.ht.
- Ibid.
- Prashant Jha, “UML-Maoists clarify 7-Point agreement”, The Hindu, 17 February 2011.
- S.D. Muni, “Nepal Under Khanal: Options before India”, The Tribune, 9 February 2011.
- Ibid.
- Prashant Jha, “We are aware of India’s interests: Interview with Nepal Prime Minister Jhalanath Khanal”, The Hindu, 12 February 2011.
- Ibid.
Article published in Third Concept/March 2011/Vol.25/No.289/P.no.7/
