Arthashastra is a significant treatise, which was written by Chanakya, an Indian philosopher in ancient times.
According to Henry Kissinger, the American diplomat, it’s a marvelous literary work that lays out the requirements of power, an eternally “dominant reality” in global politics.
Arthashastra, whose maxims have influenced Indian policy making through ages, emphasizes on a hegemonic policy if a state has to establish its regional stability.
India’s rather ham-handed response to democratic drafting and promulgation of a new constitution by a popularly elected Constituent Assembly in neighboring Nepal, once again establishes the allegations of smaller neighbors that New Delhi has always tried to be an overbearing and dominating regional power, continually trying to exploit the internal weaknesses of her neighbors.
Why else would a sensible political leadership of a responsible nation like India dispatch a special envoy to convey its extreme unhappiness, merely on the presumption that the adopted constitution will create an unequal society in Nepal?
Indian envoy Jaishankar, in fact, quite discourteously pressurized the Nepalese government to delay the adoption of the constitution to supposedly secure political and social stability. But the truth is New Delhi is desperately trying to ensure that the political hold of the Brahmin-Khatri elite in the picturesque Himalayan country is not perpetuated.
Top government sources have confirmed that India has been trying to manipulate the Madhesi ethnic group of southern Nepal’s Terai region, with close ethnic ties with India, for some time now to counter growing Chinese influence. An external intelligence source even confided in this author about the use of ethno-regional groups as strategic assets, so as to keep the ethno-communal plot boiling in a critical corridor, which acts as the gateway to fuel supply in entire Nepal. And this tactical maneuvering, says the same source, is intended to put adequate pressure on the Nepalese leadership, as this calibrated violence, gripping Nepal presently, has affected the supply of fuel in Nepal’s capital Katmandu and other major towns.
India, indeed, emulated Chanakya’s ruthlessness and deceit to not only micro-manage the evolving political situation in Nepal but also push the Himalayan nation to the wall from where there is only one way out — surrender to New Delhi’s whims and fancies. India’s Foreign Ministry, while expressing concern at the deteriorating law and order situation in several parts of Nepal, bordering India, followed up with a veiled threat of economic blockade, similar to the one that Nepal witnessed in 1988.
Will any civilized nation ever cross the red-line of diplomatic etiquette so unabashedly? India has been irritated by the Nepalese leadership in the recent past over the earthquake relief fiasco. In reality, however, it was caused by Indian premier Narendra Modi’s uncontrolled desire for publicity. In fact, in private conversations, South Block mandarins have been unhesitantly describing Nepalese politicians as petulant and ungracious people, who shrewdly play India to its advantage, as and when necessary.
The question is can Nepal, the oldest nation-state in South Asia, not have the liberty to implement its new constitution independently without the interference of a big brother?
After all, the freshly adopted federal constitution institutionalized the republic and secularism and also conferred several social and economic rights on its people, including the marginalized communities, that a developing nation is expected to provide. It is interesting that New Delhi actually facilitated the initial process of writing a new constitution by brokering a peace deal with the underground ultra-left Maoist rebels and Nepal’s democratic parties in 2005. What has changed between then and now that New Delhi refuses to recognize the necessity of Nepal implementing the social agendas for faster economic revival, in accordance with the constitutional provisions?
What prompted the Indian leadership to curtly ask its northern neighbor, a sovereign state in its own right, to carry out “seven amendments” in order to make it acceptable to the minority ethnic communities, used by New Delhi as a strategic tool? No doubt, they constitute 40 percent of Nepal’s population.
But is it proper for India to openly dictate terms to Nepal on what should and should not remain in the country’s newly adopted statute book, including the kind of provinces to be created exclusively in the plains of Terai foothills?
Is it not a fact that all contentious issues, like proportional representation in every arms of state, adjustment of electoral constituencies based on population and some aspects of citizenship rights have already been discussed and settled between the Madhes-based parties and the three main Nepalese political outfits during the initial phase of constitution writing?
Besides, as senior Nepali journalist Kanak Mani Dixit asserts, “if the neighbor’s strategic interest forces a fait accompli of exclusively plains-based provinces, there are two possible outcomes. First, the massive weight of poverty of the plains will be locked in and the promise of federalism will likely be wasted.
Second, this interference will create a politically unstable Nepal astride India’s populous heartland.”
Most importantly, New Delhi seems to be undermining the fact that, left to itself, the Madhesi community, having provided Nepal’s first President Ram Baran Yadav, will show no divided loyalties. Moreover, like any progressive constitution, Nepal’s own statute too will evolve through working experience, especially when everything except sovereignty and national integrity are open to future amendments. For India therefore, it is time to respect the smaller neighbors’ dignity, in order to preserve regional peace and harmony.
