Indian and China hover over Nepal
By Sudha Ramachandran
BANGALORE - Nearly four months after Nepal's prime minister Madhav Kumar Nepal
stepped down under pressure from the opposition Maoists, the political impasse
is showing no signs of resolution as the country flounders without a
government.
None of the candidates in the fray has been able to secure a simple majority in
the 601-seat parliament in around 12 rounds of voting so far.
Former prime minister and Maoist chief Pushpa Kumar Dahal, aka Prachanda,
contested in seven rounds but failed to secure the required number of votes in
any, although his party, the
Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), is the largest in parliament.
In the most recent round, the lone candidate, the Nepali Congress leader Ram
Chandra Paudel, managed to get just 89 votes. The Maoists, the Communist Party
of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist) (CPN-UML) and three Madhesi parties stayed
out of the vote, having reached an agreement to work towards formation of a
national government as a way out of the impasse.
The political paralysis has contributed to a deepening economic crisis in the
country, one of world's poorest. On Wednesday, the United Nations Security
Council called on Nepal's caretaker government and all parties to "redouble
their efforts" to break the deadlock.
Officials from India, China and the European Union have been talking to
political leaders and using all means at their disposal to break the stalemate.
While the next round of voting is scheduled for October 26, there are few signs
that the crisis will end soon.
Sections of the Nepali media, the public and the political parties blame India
for the impasse. They believe that Delhi's "meddling" in Nepal's politics is
preventing government formation. An argument that has many takers in Nepal
today is that Delhi has been working overtime to prevent the Maoists from
returning to power.
India's unease with the Maoists is well known. There is a perception here that
Nepal's Maoists have strong links with India's Maoists. Indian officials
continue to see them as rebels and are convinced that their shift to mainstream
politics is temporary. India is opposed to their ambitions of restructuring in
a fundamental way the Nepali state and its institutions, noted Indian analyst
Siddharth Varadarajan wrote in the Hindu newspaper.
Moreover, the Maoists are seen to be pro-China. During the short period they
were in power, the Maoists were seen to be tilting towards China. Delhi fears
that if they return to power, India's weakening influence in Nepal will
diminish further.
Landlocked Nepal is sandwiched between India and China (through Tibet). India
looks on Nepal as falling under its sphere of influence and regards any warming
of Sino-Nepal relations with suspicion.
India has always played an important role in Nepal's politics. Nepal's
pro-democracy movement was supported by India for several decades and Nepali
Congress leaders waged their struggle for democracy from Indian soil. More
recently, Indian leaders helped broker the 12-point understanding between the
Maoists and Nepal's other political parties in 2005, enabling the rebels to
emerge from the underground. Delhi played an important role too in convincing
the king to step down.
While Nepal's democracy owes much to India, it is a fact too that when
democratic elections in 2008 brought the Maoists to power, Delhi's support for
democracy wavered. In the series of spats between the Maoist-led government and
the military in 2009, it backed the latter and blocked the Maoist move to sack
the army chief. India is believed to have played a role in the collapse of the
Maoist government in May 2009 and in putting together the coalition government
headed by Madhav Nepal.
Over the past year, anti-Indian sentiment has mounted in Nepal, visible in
articles and editorials in the media and in public discourse. While it is
possible that this sentiment is being stoked, as claimed by Indian intelligence
agencies, by the Maoists, Indian officials cannot absolve themselves of
responsibility for Delhi's fading fortunes in Nepal. Their repeated bungling
has resulted in support for India touching an all-time low in Nepal.
Delhi's excessive response to Nepal's largest media house - the Kantipur Group,
with its "biased reporting" and "anti-India editorial positions" - is one
example of this bungling.
India was awarded a contract by the Nepali government for printing its
passports. The decision was opposed by the Maoists. When the Kantipur Group,
which was vocal in its criticism of the decision, published a leaked letter
from the Indian ambassador to the Nepali government requesting its cooperation
on the awarding of the contract as it involved Indian security, an embarrassed
and annoyed India struck back.
First, the embassy withdrew its advertisements in the Kantipur's publications.
Then advertisements from Indian companies dried up, too. Then came a deadlier
blow. Newsprint meant for Kantipur publications was stopped by Indian customs
authorities at Kolkata port.
When the Kantipur Group went public on the spat, Nepali public sentiment swung
against Indian "bullying".
While the dispute has since been resolved somewhat with Kantipur agreeing to
adopt a more "constructive" editorial position and India releasing the
newsprint, the damage to India's already plunging stock in Nepal has been done.
Then came allegations by lawmaker Ram Kumar Sharma, a Madhesi politician who
recently crossed over to vote with the Maoists. Sharma alleged that an Indian
Embassy official had warned him that his daughter would be thrown out of an
Indian government-run school in Kathmandu if he did not vote as told, ie not
for Prachanda.
While the veracity of his claim has yet to be established, what is clear is
that the gloves are off in Nepal, with Delhi and the Maoists engaged in a
no-holds-barred war of words and more.
The Maoists have stepped up their stoking of anti-Indian sentiment in the
country, while India's determination to keep the Maoists out of power is
growing.
Beijing involved too
India, however, is not alone in "meddling" in Nepal's politics. Rival China
seems to be at it too. The end of monarchy in Nepal was a huge blow to the
Chinese, as Nepal's kings have traditionally been closer to Beijing than Delhi,
the latter having supported the pro-democracy struggles. In 2005, for instance,
King Gyanendra initiated the successful effort to get China into the South
Asian Association for Regional Cooperation as an observer, much to India's
chagrin.
Then when the Maoists came to power, China successfully wooed Prachanda. His
exit was a setback to Chinese influence. The Chinese are just as determined as
the Indians to see that they have a "friendly face" at the helm in Kathmandu,
someone they can count on to crush the increasing activity of the “free Tibet”
movement in Nepal. Hence their support for the Maoists. Prachanda is reported
to have met Chinese officials repeatedly in recent months.
China has matched India's every step in Nepal. In 2007, for instance, when
India reportedly helped form the Terai-Madhes Loktantrik Party, Beijing
deepened its interaction with the Madhesi Jana Adhikar Forum, even sending a
Chinese to its annual conference last year.
The Chinese role in the current impasse was laid bare recently when journalists
in Kathmandu received a tape of a telephonic conversation between the Maoists'
foreign affairs cell chief Krishna Bahadur Mahara and an unidentified Chinese
official, wherein Mahara is heard asking for 500 million rupees (US$11.2
million) to secure the votes of 50 members of parliament, apparently from the
Madhesi parties, for Prachanda.
Beijing has not concealed its unhappiness with India's enhanced role. "Nepal
must be able to solve its problems on its own without outside interference, and
China takes every such interference seriously," He Yong, a member of the
central secretariat of the Communist Party of China who led a 21-member
delegation to Nepal, is reported to have said during meetings with the Nepali
president, acting prime minister and the Maoist leader.
China has never hesitated to pressure Nepal's government to act against Tibetan
activists. A little over a fortnight ago, Chinese pressure forced Nepalese
authorities to crack down on an attempt by Tibetans to vote in elections for a
new government-in-exile. Police confiscated ballot boxes midway through the
poll.
More embarrassing for the Nepali government was the pressure it was subjected
to when President Ram Baran Yadav planned to visit a Buddhist monastery in
Boudha last year to inaugurate the centenary celebrations of a Buddhist monk.
Chinese officials in Kathmandu warned the government that the visit would be
interpreted in Beijing as aiding and abetting anti-Chinese activities.
President Yadav canceled his visit an hour before his scheduled arrival at
Boudha. Boudha is home to a large number of Tibetan refugees.
While Chinese influence in Nepal is growing, India has only itself to blame for
its dwindling clout in Kathmandu. Its misreading of the Maoists and its
stubborn reluctance to accept them as a part of Nepal's democratic arena has
pushed them into China's waiting arms.
"India has lost the plot" in Nepal, Varadarajan observed. It has allowed "the
paranoia and tunnel vision of its security and intelligence establishment to
compromise its long-term strategic interests" in the region.
Meanwhile, reports indicate that Nepal's deposed King Gyanendra is fishing in
the country's troubled waters too, and is seeking to make a political comeback.
He will be looking for powerful patrons. India and China are wading ever deeper
into Nepal's political swamp. Which of them will succumb to the temptation of
biting the ex-king's bait?
Sudha Ramachandran is an independent journalist/researcher based in
Bangalore.
(Copyright 2010 Asia Times Online (Holdings) 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
