The picturesque Himalayan State of Nepal is stuck in a quagmire. While the world’s attention in recent times was focused on Indo-Pakistan flare up due to media hype, another South Asian nation seems to be slipping into anarchy quietly.
The Nov. 19 constituent assembly election — that analysts believed was the only way to extricate impoverished Nepal out of half-a-decade old constitutional crisis — failed to usher in the much sought-after political stability. A hung parliament and the defeated Maoists’ threat of non-cooperation — unless their demand for investigation into alleged poll irregularities and accommodation in a unity government are met — can potentially deepen the chaos.
Though the single largest Nepali Congress party leadership displayed sagacity by embracing the runner-up CPN (UML) party and inviting others to join a national government, past rivalries will possibly cast a long shadow over the process of social and political reconciliation in Nepal. It is time for Nepal’s political class to realize that an altered political and social reality calls for introduction of a fundamentally unique approach to take the country forward. Unfortunately, the citizens of Nepal have a bitter experience of a disastrous rendezvous with democracy.
Nepal’s national economy is in disarray due to uninterrupted political instability and this landlocked nation currently depends on foreign aid to fund two-third of its development projects. But for the external financial support plus significant funds sent home annually by the expatriate Nepali population working in the Gulf region and elsewhere, the country would have gone bankrupt long ago. Even agriculture, Nepal’s principal economic activity that contributes to one third of GDP, is in shambles. Worst still, tourism, the most potential revenue generator, is giving diminishing returns.
However, in all fairness, Nepal’s faltering steps toward republicanism should be attributed to a prolonged strategic rivalry between its giant neighbors India and China. Nepal is critical to both of them in achieving key geopolitical objectives in South Asia. The Asian giants espouses two conflicting view of the Himalayan nation’s constitutional roadmap. While officials in New Delhi prefer ethnicity based federalization with maximum autonomy reserved for the plains of Terai or Madhesh, China on the other hand seeks minimum alteration in status quo. Contrary to Beijing’s discreet way of advancing its own interest down south, India’s security paraphernalia has a history of overtly nurturing ethnic disgruntlement in Nepali regions bordering Indian territories.
In fact, Indian diplomats are accused of blatantly taking sides in confrontations between various actors and institutions in Nepal. Such foreign interferences created enough stimuli to incite domestic disaffection and the abject failure of the Nepali leadership of all hue to preserve the core national interest intensified the disillusionment further. Undoubtedly, not a single Nepali politician attained the standard of that standalone statesman, capable of preventing his motherland from descending into a morass of myopia, corruption and caprice. They surely must take the blame for the exodus of 6 million people in search of economic opportunities elsewhere due to perpetual political stalemate.
Now that the Nepali Congress has turned out to be the biggest beneficiary of the election, it remains to be seen how the new situation shape New Delhi’s Nepal policy. India, previously invested heavily on the revolutionary-turned-democrat Babubaram Bhattarai to checkmate China-backed Prachanda. More importantly, the Indian establishment had earlier blocked the Nepali Congress President Sushil Koirala from taking charge of a unity government, using their leverage with the Madheshi umbrella group Samyukta Loktantrik Madheshi Morcha, despite a deal reached between the major political stakeholders. A dejected Koirala had warned India that if the Maoists’ bid to capture state power “by hook or crook” succeeds in Nepal, his country would turn into a fertile breeding ground for Naxalites — the Indian version of radical leftists. The world might be happy with the outcome of the recently concluded constituent assembly polls in Nepal but there will be inevitable consequences of the Maoist defeat. Will the defeated Maoists, who were integrated into mainstream politics through a 12-point agreement signed in New Delhi in 2005, return to their guerrilla lifestyle?
It is not easy to switch back to a hit-and-run mode after having enjoyed the fruit of officialdom and a luxurious lifestyle. For New Delhi, however, there is little room for complacency. All throughout the turmoil, the Indian establishment did not play its cards well. They stood solidly behind a prime minister who was severely reprimanded by the judiciary for blocking the murder trial of a journalist. Supporting such a controversial political figure that was also accused of hiding war massacres did antagonize a large section of the Nepali populace who have a soft corner for Indian culture and tradition historically.
Analysts observing the evolution of radical ultra-left movement in India are of the opinion that the isolated Maoists in Nepal might be tempted to boost collaboration with their Indian counterparts. The porosity of the Indo-Nepal frontier can help sustain a uniform level of violence on Indian soil due to renewed tactical alliance between ideological comrades.
So, the Indian strategic establishment can no longer repeat the past mistakes if they want to preserve domestic as well as regional peace and stability. Rather, it is time for New Delhi to act in a way that does not put into quandary a realistic chance of achieving a democratic zone of peace in the Indian subcontinent. Nepal, at the end of the day, requires sufficient time and international assistance to stabilize and prosper because drafting a constitution is no child’s play.
Email: [email protected]
