Advertisement|
Loading...
|
 |
There is a danger of the country plunging into yet another insurgency originating in Terai if the crisis continues there and relationship with India remains strenuous. The only way of avoiding that is the government being flexible enough to address the demands of Madheshi parties and bring them on board the national dialogue, which will put moral pressure on New Delhi to show some level of respect to Nepal’s newly promulgated constitution.
Insurgency in Terai could be a powerful tool to sabotage everything that Nepal has achieved so far and push this country to another sustained crisis. It won’t be far-fetched to say that Indian establishment will remain quiet while its intelligence agencies stretch their muscles to destabilize the border areas and still ensure their own security in those areas. A too nationalistic percept while dealing with India and taking rigid stance vis-Ã -vis demands of Madhesh-based parties are dangerous for Nepal’s long-term economic sustainability and protection of its sovereignty.
September 20 - the day new constitution was promulgated from Constituent Assembly - was a mix of cheerful candlelight vigils in different parts of the country and protests especially in Terai. New Delhi did not welcome it, showing concerns over unrest in Terai. While the Indian capital was issuing one press release after another to display its dissatisfaction over Nepal's political developments, panic spread among consumers in Kathmandu and elsewhere, fueled by plausible rumors that the southern neighbor was in the mood of imposing blockade.
It would have been natural if India had used diplomatic channels to show its concerns and put moral pressures on Nepali leadership to be careful about its concerns and even to ensure the changes it wishes to see in Nepal's constitution. Instead, it publicly put political pressures to change the course of political and constitutional development in Kathmandu.
Conspiracy theorists argue that New Delhi establishment prefers to have a ‘controlled chaos' in Nepal, which may be true. Although Nepal hoped a change in such a tendency after a 'development-oriented' Modi rose to power, current developments only proved the futility of their expectations. Modi comes from a political background tainted with religious fundamentalism, and there are people and organizations around him that encourage him to lobby to make Nepal a Hindu state. Likewise, a section of people in India, who spent their career claiming to be expert on Nepal issue, have been strongly lobbying in New Delhi to reverse Nepal's constitutional process, suggesting that whatever course Nepal has taken is against India’s interests. Modi has been manipulated by factors such as religious organizations, bureaucracy and people, who are driven by their ego rather than calculated rationality. The last minute visit of India's foreign secretary S Jaishankar as Modi's special envoy is a result of accumulated pressure from all these groups. The real message that Jaishankar’s visit gives is that Modi also believes that things could be reversed in Nepal’s domestic politics if India wants. Failure to do so made this whole process a prestige issue for Indian political leadership.
Madesh has been historically marginalized and suppressed by rulers from Kathmandu and India has been exploiting this for its own interests. But too much nationalistic fervor, especially from Pahade leaders in Kathmandu just diminishes opportunities to bring all Nepalis together.
Political leadership has to abandon its idea that Madhesh is used by India and should heed to the demands of Madhesh pragmatically. What is important for the leaders to understand is that Madhesh-based parties do not represent all Madhesis; there are Terai denizens who do not agree with the agenda lobbied by the Madhesi parties.
Nepal's neighbors India and China are equally arrogant when it comes to their policies towards the country. Nepal’s only way out is to move forward by balancing the two powers. China’s political leadership is concerned about the future of Nepal, but not beyond the extent of its Tibet-issue; it merely looks at Nepal from its security point of view, vis-Ã -vis Tibet. It would be a mistake to show ultra-nationalism in Kathmandu against India since China would not be forth-coming to save Nepal except extending its support in some of the economic fronts and humanitarian assistance. That does not mean Nepal shouldn’t be paying attention to Chinese security concerns.
India has its own problems that range from bottlenecks to economic development to security challenges. But New Delhi is not ready to lose grips from its traditional ‘sphere of influence’. Moreover, Indian ambition is to gradually have more influence at the global level. The best approach for Nepal is to be diplomatically assertive but not too nationalist that may also keep other countries away from supporting it.
Our misfortune is that the world looks at Nepal from India’s lens. Sovereignty of a country is an ‘imagined reality’; hence no country will take it seriously until and unless the country in question has something to give them back in economic terms. The best approach out of this situation for Nepal is to be economically sophisticated by establishing world-class educational institutions, improving governance and building infrastructures without being too nationalistic about where the money comes from.
The leadership has to start slowly, shifting political debate from its current focus on nationalism, ethnic and regional politics to economic development and avoid a pseudo-insurgency in Terai, which could be enough to drag this country in another vicious circle of underdevelopment and backwardness.
Advertisement|
loading...
|
|
Loading...