D
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Guest
Nepal triggers Himalayan avalanche
By M. K. Bhadrakumar
THE ASIA TIMES
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
The South Asian political landscape will never be the same
again following the Maoist victory march in Nepal's
elections to a new 601-seat constituent Assembly last
Thursday. It may take several days before the election
results are fully known, but available trends indicate that
the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is surging ahead. By
Monday, the Maoists had secured 89 of the total declared
162 seats for which results were declared.
The established mainstream parties, such as the Nepali
Congress and Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist)
are trailing far behind. The royalists, who rooted for the
perpetuation of the 240-year-old Hindu monarchy, have been
routed. A distinct possibility arises that the Maoists will
secure a simple majority and lead the next government -- an
extraordinary feat for the former rebels who gave up a
decade-long armed struggle and took to the democratic path
hardly two years ago.
The impact is bound to be far-reaching on Nepal's political
economy, South Asia's political landscape and the
geopolitics of the region. Thursday's elections are
primarily aimed at forming a constituent assembly to
determine the contours of Nepal's political system. The
results signify that the country is irrevocably set on the
path of republicanism. Even the limited role of a
constitutional monarchy seems out of the question.
The results signify pervasive popular disenchantment with
the established political parties. Most expert commentators
have to explain their lapse in not foreseeing such an
outburst of popular opinion. Clearly, the people have voted
for change. The groundswell of support for Maoists is
fairly widespread, cutting across regions. Claiming
victory, Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal (popularly called
Prachanda) said his party's victory was a mandate for
lasting peace, implementation of the democratic republic
and rapid economic development. He frontally addressed the
intriguing question: "People are asking, 'What is this
Maoist party?' And the international community is asking,
'What will happen after the Maoists win?' All these fears
are unnecessary."
Prachanda held out the assurance that his party's agenda
would be to work with other political parties during the
transition period. "We will establish greater national
unity with all political parties after the election," he
added. The Maoists received commendation from an unexpected
quarter when former US president Jimmy Carter, who led a
team of foreign observers, stated at a press conference in
Kathmandu on Saturday his conviction that the former rebels
were every bit wedded to the democratic path.
The poorest country in South Asia has suddenly catapulted
itself to the vanguard of democratic reform and political
transformation in the region. India, which basks in the
glory of its democratic way of life, at once looks a little
bit archaic and tired in comparison. After 60 years of
uninterrupted democratic pluralism, vast sections of Indian
society are yet to realize the potentials of political
empowerment. The Nepalese people have come from behind and
overtaken the Indians in expanding the frontiers of
"bourgeois" politics.
Politics in India still meander through alleys of caste and
parochialism and eddies of religious obscurantism and Hindu
nationalism. The upper-caste Hindu elites in Nepal used to
share social kinships with the Indian political elites. The
Maoists have upturned Nepal's entrenched caste politics.
The Indian electorate is yet to explore in full measure
ideology-based secular political empowerment, which is the
bedrock of democratic self-rule. Unsurprisingly, India's
main opposition party, the right-wing Bharatiya Janata
Party, which thrives on Hindu fundamentalism, has been
stunned into silence. It feels let down that a country that
it dearly cherished as the world's only "Hindu kingdom" has
taken to secular democracy with such panache.
The Maoist government will proceed to dismantle the pillars
of Nepal's feudal structure and will take recourse to
radical economic and political reforms based on
distributive justice and egalitarian principles. That is
bound to catch the attention of impoverished Indians in the
sub-Himalayan belt sooner or later. The Indian states
(provinces) bordering Nepal are notorious for their
misgovernance.
The Maoist victory in Nepal poses a challenge to the Indian
establishment as well. Delhi is distinctly lukewarm about
the prospect of an outright Maoist victory. The Indian
establishment traditionally works with the Nepali Congress.
Some elements within the establishment view with disquiet
the prospect of the Maoists galvanizing revolutionary
movements within India. Conceivably, Delhi didn't
anticipate a tidal wave of popular will favoring the
Maoists in Nepal.
All the same, Delhi allowed the democratic process in Nepal
to take its course. It could not but take a keen interest
in Nepalese politics and a completely "hands-off" approach
was unrealistic to expect, but the real question was of not
being intrusive to the point of interfering in Nepal's
internal affairs. In the event, Delhi kept cool and
maintained a delicate balance -- watching developments
closely while keeping a decent distance and reserving
options to adapt to circumstances. However, a period of
adjustment to the new political realities in Kathmandu
becomes necessary and a thorough revamping of policy
directions is inevitable. Nepal is far too important a
neighbor for India. Its rapidly growing relations with
China add to Delhi's policy calculus.
China's policy towards Nepal is not ideology driven insofar
as Beijing kept in view the imperatives of inter-state
relations almost until the end of King Gyanendra's direct
rule. But Beijing swiftly adapted to the emergent
democratic forces in Nepal with great pragmatism and forged
working relations with all political parties, including the
Maoists. China's interest in Nepal has increased almost
exponentially. The overarching geopolitical reality is that
the United States has become hyperactive in Nepalese
politics. The developments in Tibet have added a further
dimension. Tibetan activists in Nepal have been
particularly strident.
Much depends on Prachanda's priorities. The Maoist leader
has time and again shown he is not a dogmatist wedded to
textbook Marxism and will give primacy to the
implementation of his reform agenda. He has proved to be a
brilliant tactician. He will tap into all available
goodwill in Delhi and Beijing to the extent that his agenda
of Nepal's rapid economic development benefits.
In his first post-election comments, Prachanda said Nepal
will develop "new relations" with the Indian leadership. He
stressed the close cultural and historical links between
the two countries and pointed out it is "quite important"
to have good neighborly relations with India. "A good
understanding with Delhi can create a new basis of unity
with India," he said.
But he clarified that Nepal will maintain equidistance
between India and China in political terms. Beijing is
certain to respond to him, given the criticality of Nepal
to Tibet's security and stability. If China's Central Asia
policy is anything to go by, it will put big money on the
table in Nepal in the coming period so as to keep at bay
the three "evils" -- terrorism, religious extremism and
separatism.
Besides, Nepal is resource-rich. There are any number of
areas such as development of infrastructure, hydroelectric
power or the manufacturing industry, where Nepal offers
attractive business opportunities for enterprising Chinese
firms. Nepal can also be a gateway to the Indian market.
The advent of the Maoists to power in Kathmandu, therefore,
confronts Delhi with a creative challenge. The old days are
gone when Delhi could take a complacent view that come what
may, Kathmandu would remain wedded to cultivating Indian
goodwill. The need arises now for Delhi to be proactive,
efficient and competitive. China's "soft power" in Nepal is
already very considerable, while Nepal is no exception to
the latent "anti-Indianism" common to India's neighboring
countries.
Any Indian assumption that Nepal is its security backyard
or that it should be within India's "sphere of influence"
will be untenable. If Delhi resorts to pressure tactics,
sensing that the Maoists have a long way to go to
consolidate their grip on political power, it might prove
counterproductive.
On the other hand, the lengthening shadow of Chinese
influence in Nepal should act as a spur goading India into
creative diplomacy. Having said that, India is still left
with vast leverage over Nepal spread over several inter-
locking planes -- geography, culture and common ethos,
shared history, economic and social linkages, etc -- and
there is no real need to panic.
Almost certainly, the Maoists will want to jettison the
1950 treaty of peace and friendship with India, which they
consistently viewed as an unequal framework. Equally, Delhi
is conscious of the treaty's growing irrelevance, even
though the treaty provides significant trade and transit
advantages to landlocked Nepal and the Maoists, once in
power, may come to better appreciate that. No doubt, the
renegotiation of the treaty will bring to the fore the new
impulses of the three-way equations involving India, Nepal
and China.
Nepal has proved to be an unhappy experience for the United
States and India in their newfound interest to coordinate
and harmonize their regional policies. While India managed
to keep its options open in a developing situation, the US
policy finds itself in a cul-de-sac. It was predicated on
the naive belief that Nepal could be made a geopolitical
pressure point on China's soft underbelly. Nepal becomes
the latest link in the chain of the George W Bush
administration's foreign policy misadventures. The Maoists
of Nepal still figure in the US State Department's list of
terrorist organizations.
But Prachanda may offer Washington an exit strategy without
loss of face. Responding to the media on Sunday, he said,
"Yesterday, I had a very serious discussion with former US
president Jimmy Carter, and I raised this question [of
Washington regarding the Maoists as terrorists] ... It
seems ridiculous to me."
M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian
Foreign Service for over 29 years, with postings including
India's ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey
(1998-2001).
More at:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JD15Df02.html
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
DISCLAIMER AND CONDITIONS
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
By M. K. Bhadrakumar
THE ASIA TIMES
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
The South Asian political landscape will never be the same
again following the Maoist victory march in Nepal's
elections to a new 601-seat constituent Assembly last
Thursday. It may take several days before the election
results are fully known, but available trends indicate that
the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is surging ahead. By
Monday, the Maoists had secured 89 of the total declared
162 seats for which results were declared.
The established mainstream parties, such as the Nepali
Congress and Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist)
are trailing far behind. The royalists, who rooted for the
perpetuation of the 240-year-old Hindu monarchy, have been
routed. A distinct possibility arises that the Maoists will
secure a simple majority and lead the next government -- an
extraordinary feat for the former rebels who gave up a
decade-long armed struggle and took to the democratic path
hardly two years ago.
The impact is bound to be far-reaching on Nepal's political
economy, South Asia's political landscape and the
geopolitics of the region. Thursday's elections are
primarily aimed at forming a constituent assembly to
determine the contours of Nepal's political system. The
results signify that the country is irrevocably set on the
path of republicanism. Even the limited role of a
constitutional monarchy seems out of the question.
The results signify pervasive popular disenchantment with
the established political parties. Most expert commentators
have to explain their lapse in not foreseeing such an
outburst of popular opinion. Clearly, the people have voted
for change. The groundswell of support for Maoists is
fairly widespread, cutting across regions. Claiming
victory, Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal (popularly called
Prachanda) said his party's victory was a mandate for
lasting peace, implementation of the democratic republic
and rapid economic development. He frontally addressed the
intriguing question: "People are asking, 'What is this
Maoist party?' And the international community is asking,
'What will happen after the Maoists win?' All these fears
are unnecessary."
Prachanda held out the assurance that his party's agenda
would be to work with other political parties during the
transition period. "We will establish greater national
unity with all political parties after the election," he
added. The Maoists received commendation from an unexpected
quarter when former US president Jimmy Carter, who led a
team of foreign observers, stated at a press conference in
Kathmandu on Saturday his conviction that the former rebels
were every bit wedded to the democratic path.
The poorest country in South Asia has suddenly catapulted
itself to the vanguard of democratic reform and political
transformation in the region. India, which basks in the
glory of its democratic way of life, at once looks a little
bit archaic and tired in comparison. After 60 years of
uninterrupted democratic pluralism, vast sections of Indian
society are yet to realize the potentials of political
empowerment. The Nepalese people have come from behind and
overtaken the Indians in expanding the frontiers of
"bourgeois" politics.
Politics in India still meander through alleys of caste and
parochialism and eddies of religious obscurantism and Hindu
nationalism. The upper-caste Hindu elites in Nepal used to
share social kinships with the Indian political elites. The
Maoists have upturned Nepal's entrenched caste politics.
The Indian electorate is yet to explore in full measure
ideology-based secular political empowerment, which is the
bedrock of democratic self-rule. Unsurprisingly, India's
main opposition party, the right-wing Bharatiya Janata
Party, which thrives on Hindu fundamentalism, has been
stunned into silence. It feels let down that a country that
it dearly cherished as the world's only "Hindu kingdom" has
taken to secular democracy with such panache.
The Maoist government will proceed to dismantle the pillars
of Nepal's feudal structure and will take recourse to
radical economic and political reforms based on
distributive justice and egalitarian principles. That is
bound to catch the attention of impoverished Indians in the
sub-Himalayan belt sooner or later. The Indian states
(provinces) bordering Nepal are notorious for their
misgovernance.
The Maoist victory in Nepal poses a challenge to the Indian
establishment as well. Delhi is distinctly lukewarm about
the prospect of an outright Maoist victory. The Indian
establishment traditionally works with the Nepali Congress.
Some elements within the establishment view with disquiet
the prospect of the Maoists galvanizing revolutionary
movements within India. Conceivably, Delhi didn't
anticipate a tidal wave of popular will favoring the
Maoists in Nepal.
All the same, Delhi allowed the democratic process in Nepal
to take its course. It could not but take a keen interest
in Nepalese politics and a completely "hands-off" approach
was unrealistic to expect, but the real question was of not
being intrusive to the point of interfering in Nepal's
internal affairs. In the event, Delhi kept cool and
maintained a delicate balance -- watching developments
closely while keeping a decent distance and reserving
options to adapt to circumstances. However, a period of
adjustment to the new political realities in Kathmandu
becomes necessary and a thorough revamping of policy
directions is inevitable. Nepal is far too important a
neighbor for India. Its rapidly growing relations with
China add to Delhi's policy calculus.
China's policy towards Nepal is not ideology driven insofar
as Beijing kept in view the imperatives of inter-state
relations almost until the end of King Gyanendra's direct
rule. But Beijing swiftly adapted to the emergent
democratic forces in Nepal with great pragmatism and forged
working relations with all political parties, including the
Maoists. China's interest in Nepal has increased almost
exponentially. The overarching geopolitical reality is that
the United States has become hyperactive in Nepalese
politics. The developments in Tibet have added a further
dimension. Tibetan activists in Nepal have been
particularly strident.
Much depends on Prachanda's priorities. The Maoist leader
has time and again shown he is not a dogmatist wedded to
textbook Marxism and will give primacy to the
implementation of his reform agenda. He has proved to be a
brilliant tactician. He will tap into all available
goodwill in Delhi and Beijing to the extent that his agenda
of Nepal's rapid economic development benefits.
In his first post-election comments, Prachanda said Nepal
will develop "new relations" with the Indian leadership. He
stressed the close cultural and historical links between
the two countries and pointed out it is "quite important"
to have good neighborly relations with India. "A good
understanding with Delhi can create a new basis of unity
with India," he said.
But he clarified that Nepal will maintain equidistance
between India and China in political terms. Beijing is
certain to respond to him, given the criticality of Nepal
to Tibet's security and stability. If China's Central Asia
policy is anything to go by, it will put big money on the
table in Nepal in the coming period so as to keep at bay
the three "evils" -- terrorism, religious extremism and
separatism.
Besides, Nepal is resource-rich. There are any number of
areas such as development of infrastructure, hydroelectric
power or the manufacturing industry, where Nepal offers
attractive business opportunities for enterprising Chinese
firms. Nepal can also be a gateway to the Indian market.
The advent of the Maoists to power in Kathmandu, therefore,
confronts Delhi with a creative challenge. The old days are
gone when Delhi could take a complacent view that come what
may, Kathmandu would remain wedded to cultivating Indian
goodwill. The need arises now for Delhi to be proactive,
efficient and competitive. China's "soft power" in Nepal is
already very considerable, while Nepal is no exception to
the latent "anti-Indianism" common to India's neighboring
countries.
Any Indian assumption that Nepal is its security backyard
or that it should be within India's "sphere of influence"
will be untenable. If Delhi resorts to pressure tactics,
sensing that the Maoists have a long way to go to
consolidate their grip on political power, it might prove
counterproductive.
On the other hand, the lengthening shadow of Chinese
influence in Nepal should act as a spur goading India into
creative diplomacy. Having said that, India is still left
with vast leverage over Nepal spread over several inter-
locking planes -- geography, culture and common ethos,
shared history, economic and social linkages, etc -- and
there is no real need to panic.
Almost certainly, the Maoists will want to jettison the
1950 treaty of peace and friendship with India, which they
consistently viewed as an unequal framework. Equally, Delhi
is conscious of the treaty's growing irrelevance, even
though the treaty provides significant trade and transit
advantages to landlocked Nepal and the Maoists, once in
power, may come to better appreciate that. No doubt, the
renegotiation of the treaty will bring to the fore the new
impulses of the three-way equations involving India, Nepal
and China.
Nepal has proved to be an unhappy experience for the United
States and India in their newfound interest to coordinate
and harmonize their regional policies. While India managed
to keep its options open in a developing situation, the US
policy finds itself in a cul-de-sac. It was predicated on
the naive belief that Nepal could be made a geopolitical
pressure point on China's soft underbelly. Nepal becomes
the latest link in the chain of the George W Bush
administration's foreign policy misadventures. The Maoists
of Nepal still figure in the US State Department's list of
terrorist organizations.
But Prachanda may offer Washington an exit strategy without
loss of face. Responding to the media on Sunday, he said,
"Yesterday, I had a very serious discussion with former US
president Jimmy Carter, and I raised this question [of
Washington regarding the Maoists as terrorists] ... It
seems ridiculous to me."
M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian
Foreign Service for over 29 years, with postings including
India's ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey
(1998-2001).
More at:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JD15Df02.html
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
DISCLAIMER AND CONDITIONS
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.