Page 2 of
2 Nepal rioting threatens political
transition By Dhruba Adhikary
that Gyanendra's loyal courtiers
have been working clandestinely to bring the
monarchy back to power.
Together with
others, Maoists see the Terai unrest as a ploy to
disturb the constituent-assembly polls and thereby
stop the smooth transition to a democratic
republic. The Maoist supremo, Pushpa Kamal Dahal
(aka Prachanda), and his deputy Barubarm Bhattarai
have publicly shared the government perception of
a conspiracy, adding that Hindu fundamentalists
from India are also
active behind the scenes.
"They are carrying many truckloads of
people from Bihar, India, to foment violence in
the Terai," Bhattarai said in a recent radio
interview.
According to Prachanda, two of
the militant Madheshi groups that have surfaced in
recent months are headed by people who were
earlier expelled from the Maoist party. And the
leader of a "forum" of the Madheshi community was
once detained in India for being a member of the
Nepali Maoist movement.
While Indian
authorities, said Prachanda in a televised debate
last week, handed over two of three detainees to
the Nepali army, the third one, Upendra Yadav, was
set free without any condition. He was allowed to
stay in India for the next six months, and now he
is the person who heads the "forum" for Madheshi
rights. The Maoist leadership once again claimed
in a press conference on Thursday that the Indian
establishment is conniving, if not overtly
cooperating, with the groups carrying out violent
deeds in the southern plains.
Indian
Ambassador Shiv Shankar Mukherjee has described as
"rumors" the media reports that India's Hindu
nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party was involved in
the Terai mayhem.
Mukherjee, as a
diplomat, has to follow New Delhi's instructions.
But people who welcomed India's support of the
pro-democracy movement last year do not believe
that the ruling class in New Delhi is unaware of
what is happening in Terai. India is the only
country that has a consulate in Nepal outside of
the capital city, Kathmandu. Birgunj, where the
Indian diplomatic mission is located, has been in
the midst of what a local journalist described as
a "highly inflammable" situation since last week.
"A lot of vested interests are active,"
Chandrakishore Jha, editor of a local
newsmagazine, told Asia Times Online. He did not
elaborate.
Back in Kathmandu, there is a
strong perception that New Delhi has instigated a
directionless, and often leaderless, violent
movement, the fallout of which could harm Indian
interests. It appears to be a case of
shortsightedness. Analyst Madan Regmi, writing in
the People's Review weekly, used strong words to
criticize the UN for glossing over the reality and
becoming servile to New Delhi.
What is New
Delhi up to? Since Nepali rulers have always shied
away from entering any agreement to place Nepal
under the Indian security umbrella, often citing
their need to balance relations with China, New
Delhi might have devised an alternative scheme to
achieve its objective. One such alternative could
be to fan a secessionist movement in Terai.
Professor Mahendra Lama of Jawarharlal
Nehru University does not find reason to disagree
with such a view even if it sounds alarming. In an
interaction program held in Kathmandu on December
26, Lama alluded to a small but strong minority
view in New Delhi that advocates the following:
"If Nepal has to be managed effectively, it should
be allowed to disintegrate." Such a minority view
might not ultimately prevail in India, which is an
emerging Asia power.
But this minority
opinion does not seem to be a sudden thought. In a
book titled The Call of Nepal, a former
British embassy defense attache in Laos, J P
Cross, recalls his conversation with an Indian
embassy diplomat in mid-1970s (around the time
India "liberated" Bangladesh and annexed Sikkim)
when he told the author, "sincerely if a little
drunkenly, that by the year 2000 Nepal would be
part of India for all intent and purposes. He
proceeded to tell me the weak points about all
levels of Nepalese administration that India would
rectify."
Why did it not it happen? First,
as Lama said, it has been a minority view probably
influenced by a colonial mindset inherited from
the British Raj. Second, events in 1980s and
thereafter did not encourage the Indian leadership
to embark on a mission that would put the Indian
military face to face with the Chinese in an
additional area covering nearly 1,500 kilometers.
Third, the global scenario that emerged after
September 11, 2001, required India to explore
other alternatives, including the one referred to
by Professor Lama.
Dhruba
Adhikary, who has been a Dag Hammarskjold
fellow, is a Kathmandu-based journalist.
(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
