External meddling: Is it real or perceived?

By Yuba Nath Lamsal

The external meddling in Nepal’s political affairs is a hotly debated issue at present. The issue came to the fore more prominently and openly after the resignation of Prachanda as the Prime Minister of Nepal. The Maoist supremo publicly blamed the external intervention in Nepal’s political affairs for his exit from power and said that ‘he chose to quit rather than clinging onto power by capitulating to foreign powers’. Their gun is clearly against India.
At the hindsight, we tend to believe what the Prime Minister of the country says. But the claims and counter claims in our political circles regarding the external meddling have confused many. But one thing is sure that our politicians are more responsible for bringing in external meddling.
Look at the recent turns of events. Prachanda and some other Maoists leaders, on the one hand, accused India of interfering in Nepal’s internal affairs that led to ouster of the Maoists from power, media reports have revealed that Prachanda himself sought opinion and help from the Indian establishment on the course of events and decisions he was going take on some issues including the one related to the army chief. In an interview to an Indian English daily after the resignation, Prachanda said that he wanted to consult with India on the issue of Nepal’s army chief and he had asked had Indian Ambassador in Kathmandu to arrange a meeting with some senior Indian officials.
So far as the Indian interest is concerned, it is very heavy in Nepal. This is so because of long open border, free movement of people across the border and other social and cultural commonalities. Perhaps, this is a unique relationship between the two countries that no other countries in the world enjoy. This is a positive aspect and this has to be given continuity. But this has to be done in the mutual interests and both the countries have to be sensitive to the interest and concerns of one another.
The geo-strategic location of Nepal has prompted more concerns of India in Nepal affairs and New Delhi always wants to keep Nepal under its security and strategic influence. But the New Delhi’s handling has come under attacks in Nepal, whereas some foreign policy hawks in New Delhi are pushing for a more intervening and coercive policy vis-à-vis Nepal.
The Indian influence in Nepal began right from the British colonial rule. After the Sugauli Treaty, in which Nepal lost a sizeable bulk of territory, Nepal’s rulers often sought support from the British colonial rulers to consolidate their hold on power. This intensified after Janga Bahadur Rana seized power and introduced Rana family rule by engineering the Kot Massacre. Some historians are of the view that British regent in Kathmandu had been aware of the plans of Kot Massacre and its consequences well in advance. The Rana rulers consulted British residents before taking any important decisions. That was the time when India was under the colonial rulers and Nepal under a despotic oligarchy.
British colonial rule ended in 1947 but the colonial legacy remained in India even after independence. The independent and democratic India continued the colonial legacy when it comes to its foreign policy particularly its relationship with immediate neighbours including Nepal. This conclusion can be drawn when independent and democratic India hastened to sign a new treaty—known as the 1950 treaty—with the beleaguered government of Nepal that was counting its final days. The treaty has been a bone of contention for many India bashers in Nepal.
It was true that India’s help in the 1950-51 and later democratic movements in 1950-51, 1990, and 2006 was crucial. Most of the Nepali leaders lived in India and launched their movement from there. India played a positive role in brokering peace and bringing the Maoists and other parliamentary parties together in the struggle against the king’s absolute regime in 2006. The 12-point agreement between the Maoists and the parliamentary parties was signed in New Delhi under the midwifery of some Indian leaders with full knowledge of the Indian establishment. This was the positive New Delhi’s positive role for which Nepalese people are thankful. But India always tried to take dividend of its support to Nepal’s democratic movement.
Even after the democratic change in 1951, India’s role in Nepal’s political affairs was more than visible. However, the India’s active role in Nepal’s political affairs and decision-making process was drastically reduced when Tanka Prasad Acharya took charge as the prime minister of Nepal. BP Koirala, the first democratically elected Prime Minister of Nepal, tried to discourage external meddling but he could not totally stop it.
King Mahendra disbanded the multi-party democracy accusing the political parties of ignoring national interests and imposed the one-party Panchayat regime. The pseudo-patriotism often parroted by the Panchayat rulers often gave in to external pressure and reached some secret agreements with ostensible purpose of consolidating its hold in power and marginalizing the dissent with New Delhi’s support. The 1965 treaty is its example. Coming to this period, the Panchayat had adopted the double standard vis-à-vis its policy towards India. On this surface, it parroted patriotic stance just to hoodwink the Nepali citizens. In practice, the kings capitulated more to external forces.
Foreign meddling came to the surface after 1990 political change. The external forces started playing and interfering in Nepal’s affairs more openly. In this, our own political parties are more responsible. The political parties often invited the external powers to interfere in Nepal’s internal affairs just for partisan interest. The recent case could have been the result of this.
In the wake of the Prachanda-led government’s decision to sack the army chief five months prior to his retirement, activities of certain ambassadors were definitely undesirable and unwanted. But it was the making of our own leaders. India has always been blamed for over activism in Nepal. But other embassies are also not less active. The US and European missions, too, have often been in news for their overt and covert role in Nepal’s politics and other affairs. But their ways of handling is different and more sophisticated.
China’s stake too is high in Nepal. Its role in Nepal had never been questioned as it kept away from Nepal’s internal affairs. Recently, China, too, figured in the media for its role in Nepal’s affairs, which prompted foreign ministry spokesperson in Beijing to dismiss them as “unfounded and untrue”.
It is true that China, which had been applying quiet diplomacy, has been vocal and active quite recently. Beijing’s concerns were prompted by recent anti-China activities by some Dalai Lama’s supporters in Kathmandu. China wants stable Nepal and it believes that strong government capable enough to deal with anti-China activities more effectively is in the interest of Beijing. If Nepal slips into more chaos and instability, China’s security especially in Tibet would be in jeopardy as instable Nepal would always be a launching pad to spearhead anti-China activities.
Moreover, China is slowly growing assertive in the international arena and more particularly with its neighbouring countries. As an economic power, Beijing has now felt its international obligation. Its concerns in Nepal and other countries are prompted by this sense of obligation. The flurry of visits of high level Chinese delegations to Nepal for the last one year is a proof that Beijing’s interests are high and huge in Nepal. But China’s motives are guided by its own security. But these motives are misinterpreted by some western and Indian media to prepare a ground for further meddling in Nepal by other external forces.

Comments