[Assam] Mr. Thapa, aren’t you offering Nepal to India on a platter? Nepali dissidents making a beeline to Assam and Manikuamr Subba dispensing ‘citizenship cards’ waiting at the border is a possible scenario for the Assamese to watch helplessly!

[Bartta Bistar]

Indian intent Nepali naiveté

http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2007/others/guestcolumn/nov/guest_columns_10.php

It is time to cast off the Nepali dread and naiveté along with India's
imposing and imperialistic image.

By Chiran Jung Thapa

Two incidents rocked Nepal around the same time and both of them relate to
India. First, Nepalis rejoiced and celebrated Prashant Tamang's Indian Idol
III victory; Prashant later rocked several Nepali cities with an outstanding
musical performance. Second, on a notable contrast, General Ashok Mehta - a
retired Indian Army General rocked the political landscape by voicing the
possibility of the Indian Army entering Nepal to help it against the
destabilizing forces. Many fretted that Nepal would soon be annexed like
Sikkim. But, both the street euphoria and hawkish nervousness are overdone
and reflects naiveté at best

Both the street euphoria over Prashant's victory and the jitters stoked by
Gen. Mehta's comment reflect an uneasy Nepali outlook on India.
Notwithstanding his Indian citizenship, Prashant's Nepali descent was
adequate for Nepalis to reckon his victory as that of Nepal's over India.
Meanwhile, given some circumstantial resemblances, an obscure comment coming
from a retired Indian Army General was sufficient to foment seismic tremors
in Nepal's political landscape.

Nepali outlook on India

While the euphoria and the trepidation succinctly capture that uneasy Nepali
outlook on India, this uneasiness has never been translated into the
official outlook. Hence, two divergent outlooks persist. One is the official
outlook projected by the State and the other is the real public outlook.

The official outlook pronounced by the State portrays India as a (elder)
brotherly neighbour with whom Nepal shares history, cultural affinity and
religion. Although, the official outlook attempts to display the amicability
and affinity, it is hardly a genuine one. This outlook is borne out of
compulsion and prudence rather than willingness.

As a landlocked nation, it automatically compels Nepal to heavily rely on
the goodwill of its neighbours. Since India is the chief conduit in Nepal's
supply chain, it is even more imperative for Nepal to sustain a friendly
relationship to ensure the flow of its supplies. Further, India's military
might and economic strength commands Nepali acknowledgement and respect.

The second outlook - the general public perception, however, disregards all
this. The public outlook views India with suspicion and antipathy. Despite
relishing on Bollywood movies and Banarasi saris, the general Nepali outlook
on India has rarely been positive. The fact that the worst insult one could
smear the Nepali identity with is being called an Indian succinctly reflects
the visceral distaste for India. As anti-Indian sentiments simmer beneath
the official outlook of unrelenting friendship, the furore and violence that
spread across Nepal in 2000, after a renowned Indian actor - Hritik Roshan
allegedly made incriminating statements against Nepali people, further
demonstrates how minor incidents could trigger mass anti-Indian hysteria.

There are varying reasons for such anti-Indian sentiments. Many Nepalis view
India as an imposing imperialist who has for the longest time coveted Nepali
territory. While, given the strong influence India has held over the ruling
elites, others are convinced that Nepal has been transformed into a puppet
state. Many also feel that India has practiced a dominating and
destabilizing policy when it comes to the internal affairs of its weaker
neighbouring states. Moreover, there are many Nepalis who believe that India
is looking for an opportune moment to repeat the Sikkim-like conquest with
Nepal.

Unfeasible Annexation

Certainly, the increasing Indian influence and the supine conduct of the
Nepali leaders in the ruling alliance could be reckoned as clientalism and
erosion of Nepali sovereignty. But, the possibility of Nepal being annexed
like Sikkim is highly improbable because there are too many deterrents
against such action.

The first deterrent against annexation of Nepal would be the United Nations
(UN). Unlike Sikkim, Nepal has been an active member of the UN since 1955
and has a long history of strong participation in the UN system. So much so
that Nepal has not only adhered staunchly to the principles of the UN
charter, but has also made those principles a founding ingredient of its
foreign Policy.

As the UN stands as a testament to an international security arrangement
with certain checks and balances, the member nations in this system
recognize the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a country as
sacrosanct and inviolable. And if any member country's territorial integrity
and sovereignty were under attack, it would behoove other members in the
system to come to its aid.

The second deterrent is China. Even if UN is unable come to the rescue, it
will most certainly get China off its chair. China would be forced to act
against such assault on a bordering nation's sovereignty, especially when it
adds to its own strategic vulnerability. China has for the longest time
regarded Nepal as a buffer for a more geo-strategic advantage. And although
the Sino-Indian relationship is growing warmer due to globalization and
other economic reasons, from a logical stand point, strategic vulnerability
is bound to compel China to overlook other links to counterbalance such
risks.

Although it is very unlikely that China would allow India to annex a
sovereign bordering nation, but for some reason if China were to remain
indifferent to the Indian encroachment, the number of Nepalis serving in the
Indian Armed forces would pose as the third stumbling block for India.

The only way India could annex Nepal would be through the use of military
force. However, that very instrument of Military Force could prove to be a
double-edged sword for India because there are more than a hundred thousand
Nepalis serving in Gurkha rifles regiments of the Indian Army and other
Indian security agencies.

The fact that there is a large number of Nepalis serving in the Indian armed
forces serves as a deterrent because for India to mobilize Nepali regiments
against their own native land defies rationality. Even if other regiments
were deployed for the purpose, it would be difficult to restrain the Nepali
regiments while their own native country was being annexed. For India, such
an undertaking would only heighten the risk of a mutiny and even violence
within the Indian Territory.

But somehow, even if India managed to overcome all these stumbling blocks
and bulldoze through with its annexation plan, Nepal's unwelcoming rugged
terrain would be the fourth deterrent to keep India at bay. Given that Nepal
has perhaps one of the most rugged terrains in the world, it would be quite
strenuous for India to surmount an effective military operation.

Undeniably, it would be a cakewalk for India to take over Nepali strategic
points of importance. India has such military capability that it could
probably accomplish the mission of taking control of critical Nepali assets
by only deploying a portion of its air power and employing vertical
envelopment maneuvers. However, sustaining control would require the
infantry units. That would undoubtedly prove costly because of the wide room
for asymmetric warfare, especially the use of guerrilla tactics - which the
Nepalis (Maoists) have adequately proven to be adept at. Additionally, India
must have taken the lesson from the current examples of Afghanistan and Iraq
as to how torturous asymmetric warfare could prove to be even for the best
armies.

India's discomfiting relationship with almost all its neighbours could serve
as yet another encumbrance against any annexation plans. It has a cut-throat
relationship with Pakistan. It has fought a war with China. Indian
intervention in Sri Lankan conflict has certainly strained bi-lateral
relationship. Bitter border disputes with Bangladesh still sour the
Indo-Bangla relationship. In Bhutan - India's only client state, the
burgeoning Bhutanese elites are finding Indian influence over its
sovereignty less appetizing. And in Nepal, despite the pliant demeanour of
the ruling elites, the celebration in the streets that followed Prashant
Tamang's victory says it all. So any annexation endeavours would only add to
the security dilemma of its neighbours and put India's relationship with its
neighbours in further jeopardy.

Given all these bulwarks, it would be naive to even presume that India would
make any attempts to annex Nepal. For, India understands these dynamics and
its regional image all too well.

Ambiguous Indian Intent?

Regardless of India's understanding of such dynamics, however, Indian intent
vis-à-vis Nepal has been ambiguous and difficult to speculate. While
remaining mute over the Bhutanese autocracy, the authoritarian government of
Maldives and even supporting the dictatorial junta of Burma and Bangladesh,
India's interest in restoration of democracy in Nepal looks awkward and
sinister.

What is even more sinister is the Indian policy of supporting the Maoists,
the political parties and to a certain extent even the monarchy. It is no
secret that while on one hand India had declared the Maoists as terrorists
even before Nepal did, India was surreptitiously playing host to the Maoist
leadership through most of the insurgency years. Also, it was only after the
Indian nod of approval that the Monarch took charge from the political
parties. But on the other hand, it was India that brokered a deal between
the parties and the Maoists and then abetted their alliance to oust the
Monarch from power. Even more strangely, one of the reasons why the current
ruling alliance has been unable to completely abolish the monarchy can be
attributed to the Indian nay.

Even though ambiguities have made it very difficult to comprehend the Indian
intent vis-a vis Nepal, there is one inalienable truth that Nepal needs to
understand. That is, India is neither a benevolent brother nor is it an
ill-intentioned imperialist. Rather, it is an astute political entity in the
global political order - which is in continuous pursuit of its national
objectives and promotion of its national interests. Whether it is by
supporting dictatorial juntas or decadent democrats, the bedrock of Indian
policy is that it will do all that is necessary and within its reach as long
as there is some tangible benefit to the Indian polity.

Taking that fact into account, it is apparent that it could hardly be in the
best interest of India to annex Nepal. For, harm greatly outweighs the
benefits in such an endeavour.

Moving forward

The locus of concern, however, should not be whether India will annex Nepal
but on the misconception that Indo-Nepal relationship has been sullied. In
fact, today, Indo-Nepal relationship has reached a critical juncture as the
bi-lateral relationship is strewn by landmines of mutual mistrust.

In Nepal, there is more anti-Indian sentiment brewing than ever before. This
is mainly due to the fact that the Indian brokered peace accord has failed
abysmally. The dividend of Peace aside, this transition period has only
polarized the Nepali society and public insecurity has soared at a dizzying
rate. And Nepalis are increasingly linking all this to the India's brokering
role. Frequent surreptitious border encroachment and continued harassment
and intimidation of Nepalis living on the Indo-Nepal border by the Seema
Suraksha Bal (SSB) has only added to that disenchantment. Furthermore, the
perception that India's hand is behind the unrest in Terai makes matters
even worse.

On the other hand, India feels let down too. Many analysts reckon that India
is extremely disappointed with the political parties that it helped unite
for the purpose of peace dividend. Hence from the Indian perspective,
probably only Nepal is to blame for all its political mess. Also as the
constituent assembly elections has been postponed twice and is looking even
more uncertain, it calls into question India's judgment and the faith it put
on the current ruling alliance. Overall, Nepal's failed peace process has
certainly marred India's image as a broker and guarantor of Peace at the
international level – which must have utterly upset India.

Given this strain in the bi-lateral relationship, there is an urgent need
for both countries to re-evaluate their respective positions because there
is a huge gulf between perception and reality. Since the current
relationship does not corroborate with real sentiments and aspirations, it
is time for both countries to understand the dynamics and cement a genuine
friendship.

All India has to do to shed that imperialistic and meddlesome image and
become a truly benevolent brotherly neighbour is straight forward. It simply
has to re-envisage a new plan and help Nepal get the derailed peace process
back on track. India has to understand the fact that other than the Nepalis
themselves, it is the sole international actor with the capability to
deliver the panacea for Nepal's woes. By helping deliver the peace dividend
that the Nepali populace has been yearning for, India would earn an undying
gratitude and respect from the Nepali populace. Given the sea of hostile
sentiments against it, it would be quite a feat for India to earn that kind
of respect for change.

Likewise, more than India, it is Nepal that needs to get its act together
because an enormous opportunity of growth and progress is being squandered
by not being able to capitalize from the proximity and relationship with
India.

It is time to cast off the Nepali dread and naiveté along with India's
imposing and imperialistic image. After all, Prashant's Tamang's victory is
truly a mutual victory.

*(Thapa lives in New York and can be reached at
**chiranjthap at hotmail.com*<chiranjthap at hotmail.com>
*)*

(Editor's Note: Nepalis, wherever they live, as well as friends of Nepal
around the globe are requested to contribute their
views/opinions/recollections etc. on issues concerning present day Nepal to
the Guest Column of Nepalnews. Length of the article should not be more than
1,000 words and may be edited for the purpose of clarity and space. Relevant
photos as well as photo of the author may also be sent along with the
article. Please send your write-ups to editors at mos.com.np)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://assamnet.org/pipermail/assam_assamnet.org/attachments/20071119/38cdd3f1/attachment.html