India's failed Nepal policy
Yuba Nath Lamsal
Indian external affairs minister SM Krishna was in Kathmandu last week for a three-day visit in which he met with Nepali leaders and interacted with them on several issues including bilateral relations, Nepal\'s political and peace process and matters of Indian\'s concerns. It is Krishna\'s second visit to Nepal since he assumed the office of Indian foreign ministry two years ago. The Indian main concerns that SM Krishna and his team raised in public were the security of Indian investment in Nepal, extradition treaty that India had long been pushing and the control of anti-Indian activities in Nepal\'. However, in secret, he discussed with some of the \' India-trusted\' politicians and people on alternatives to the present \' India unfriendly\' Maoist-UML coalition government. The visit of India\'s foreign minister accompanied by foreign secretary Nirupama Rao and other responsible people in the South Block that handle Nepal desk came at a time when India\'s grip in Nepal\'s politics is slowly diminishing. Even Indian media and some foreign policy analysts in New Delhi are critical of the handling of Nepal policy. According to them, New Delhi\'s Nepal policy has failed which has given rise to massive anti-Indian feelings and activities in Nepal. India has been equating patriotic feelings and sentiments of Nepali people with anti-Indian activities. Indian media and columnists have more than often said that \'anti-Indianism is Nepal\'s patriotism\'. This is the flawed notion of India\'s foreign policy\' which speaks of the fact that India is always bent on weakening Nepal\'s patriotism and patriotic movement so that Indian influence and interference would continue to remain strong in Nepal. India\'s Nepal policy, to a large extent, has failed. But this is not a new phenomenon. India\'s Nepal policy has continued to fail right after the independence when New Delhi adopted the hawkish and expansionist policy towards its small neighbors specially Nepal. The success of foreign policy of any country and regime is to win the trust and confidence of the people as a whole. In the popular level, the image of India is fairly bad. This is because of the bullying nature of Indian establishment. India has always been using ugly tactics of coercion in order to force Nepal\'s regime to accept certain conditions which are often not favorable to Nepal. Be it the 1950 treaty or 1965 agreement, Mahakali Treaty or other issues, India has always been using coercive methods to get things done in Kathmandu. This is the method not compatible with international diplomacy and the concept of soft power, which is in vogue in modern day diplomacy. The use of force and coercive measures are always counterproductive in the long-run although it might be beneficial on the short term basis. The image of soft power and cooperative diplomacy alone build positive image of any country and win goodwill and trust of the people in other countries. India seems not to have understood this fact. Krishna\'s visit and issues he raised and discussed with Nepali leaders have reflected this long-held Indian policy towards Nepal. The sole objective of his visit was to build positive image of India in Nepal in the wake of failure of India\'s Nepal policy. The formation of the Maoist-UML coalition government headed by Jhala Nath Khanal was attributed to the failure of the India\'s Nepal policy. India was against the formation of the present Maoist-UML coalition government headed by Jhalanath Khanal and New Delhi has dubbed this government as an anti-Indian coalition. In fact, this government is against any particular country but a government formed at the initiative of Nepali parties and leaders that shunned external meddling. India had desired for the continuity of earlier UML-Nepali Congress government headed by Madhav Kumar Nepal. As a matter of fact, India backed only those who were rejected by the people. This was also one of the reasons that has created a bad image of India in Nepal. Madhav Nepal was defeated in the election from two constituencies but he was the closest chum of New Delhi and wanted him to continue. The sole reason of India\'s support to Madhav Nepal and his government was due to his policy and role to serve the interest of India right from the ratification of Mahakali Treaty. In the past, India\'s role was vital in every political change or formation of the new government. India now wants the Maoists out of power simply because the Maoists did not toe with New Delhi\'s line when they were in power two years ago. India has claimed to have played midwifery role in bringing the Maoists and the seven parties together for signing the 12-point agreement that not only made the Jana Andolan II possible but also brought the Maoists into the peaceful politics. When the Maoists went to power leading a coalition government after their emergence as the single largest party in the Constituent Assembly election, New Delhi demanded its dividends. India had expected that the Maoists would do what India had wanted in Nepal, for which New Delhi had proposed some new proposals including the extradition treaty. However, as a patriotic force, the Maoists refused to compromise in Nepal\'s national interests. Moreover, the Maoists tried to have equal relationship with India and China on the basis of mutual benefits. This Maoist policy irked India which was one of the reasons for the collapse of Prachanda-led Maoist government. The Indian influence is dwindling slowly in Nepal in recent years. The general and overall sentiment in Nepali is against India\'s attitude towards Nepal as New Delhi often tries to keep everything in Nepal\'s under its grip. Since Nepal is an independent country which has never been a colony of any country and has its own distinct character and independent policy throughout the history, Nepali people cannot tolerate any kind of neo-colonialism that India has tried to impose upon Nepal. Even during the height of British colonial power that kept most part of South Asia under its grip, Nepal kept its independence intact. British has also tried to take over Nepal but their bid failed because of the velour of Nepalese warriors in the Anglo-Nepal war which forced the British to accept Nepal as an independent country. But independent and democratic India has been a problem for Nepal\'s independence and its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Right after the independence, Indian leaders including Jawaharlal Nehru and Home Minister BB Patel adopted hawkish and expansionist policy which their successors continue even today. The annexation of Sikkim, which was an independent Himalayan nation, and taking over Kashmir are the testimony of the India\'s expansionist policy. The Indian expansionist policy is the main threat to Nepal\'s sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is reflected in the present India\'s Nepal policy as well. As and when there is a political turmoil, instability and transformation, India always pokes its nose and interferes in Nepal frequently and its acts are always against the genuine interests of the Nepalese people. The failure of preventing the Maoists coming to power is being taken by the Indian establishment as the failure of India policy in Nepal. The India\'s neighborhood policy is the principal reason for this failure. However, the people that are responsible in handling Nepal affairs including the current Indian ambassador Rakesh Sood are more responsible in fueling anti-India sentiments in Nepal. Ambassador Sood was greeted with black flags and shoes on several occasions because of his hawkish and undiplomatic role that has created bad image of India in the mind of Nepali people. The mission of Krishna\'s high-level team was to reverse this image and ensure that India\'s influence in Nepal\'s politics would continue. However, Krishna failed in his mission. Although he tried to bring together some so-called India friendly groups and people, Krishna could not do anything to break the present Maoist-UML coalition in the first place. Secondly, Krishna tried to woo Maoist leader Prachanda and bring him into India\'s fold, perhaps, with some new assurances. But Prachanda openly rebuffed and demanded that India cease its interference in Nepal and behave properly in accordance with the universally accepted diplomatic norms. Prachanda also demanded that Nepal-India relation be developed on equal footing and on the basis of mutual equality. This was not expected by India as no other leader, perhaps, especially after the 1990 political change had ever dared say so. Krishna’s visit was, thus, aimed at keeping the non-Maoist forces together so that the Maoists can be contained in accordance with India\'s grand design. This is India\'s flawed policy which is doomed to fail. India wanted to show the world that Nepali parties were not competent and capable to handle their affairs and under this pretext New Delhi wanted its direct and more naked interference in Nepal. But Nepali parties failed India\'s design and they have demonstrated that the Nepali parties are very much capable of handling their affairs on their own.
Indian external affairs minister SM Krishna was in Kathmandu last week for a three-day visit in which he met with Nepali leaders and interacted with them on several issues including bilateral relations, Nepal\'s political and peace process and matters of Indian\'s concerns. It is Krishna\'s second visit to Nepal since he assumed the office of Indian foreign ministry two years ago. The Indian main concerns that SM Krishna and his team raised in public were the security of Indian investment in Nepal, extradition treaty that India had long been pushing and the control of anti-Indian activities in Nepal\'. However, in secret, he discussed with some of the \' India-trusted\' politicians and people on alternatives to the present \' India unfriendly\' Maoist-UML coalition government. The visit of India\'s foreign minister accompanied by foreign secretary Nirupama Rao and other responsible people in the South Block that handle Nepal desk came at a time when India\'s grip in Nepal\'s politics is slowly diminishing. Even Indian media and some foreign policy analysts in New Delhi are critical of the handling of Nepal policy. According to them, New Delhi\'s Nepal policy has failed which has given rise to massive anti-Indian feelings and activities in Nepal. India has been equating patriotic feelings and sentiments of Nepali people with anti-Indian activities. Indian media and columnists have more than often said that \'anti-Indianism is Nepal\'s patriotism\'. This is the flawed notion of India\'s foreign policy\' which speaks of the fact that India is always bent on weakening Nepal\'s patriotism and patriotic movement so that Indian influence and interference would continue to remain strong in Nepal. India\'s Nepal policy, to a large extent, has failed. But this is not a new phenomenon. India\'s Nepal policy has continued to fail right after the independence when New Delhi adopted the hawkish and expansionist policy towards its small neighbors specially Nepal. The success of foreign policy of any country and regime is to win the trust and confidence of the people as a whole. In the popular level, the image of India is fairly bad. This is because of the bullying nature of Indian establishment. India has always been using ugly tactics of coercion in order to force Nepal\'s regime to accept certain conditions which are often not favorable to Nepal. Be it the 1950 treaty or 1965 agreement, Mahakali Treaty or other issues, India has always been using coercive methods to get things done in Kathmandu. This is the method not compatible with international diplomacy and the concept of soft power, which is in vogue in modern day diplomacy. The use of force and coercive measures are always counterproductive in the long-run although it might be beneficial on the short term basis. The image of soft power and cooperative diplomacy alone build positive image of any country and win goodwill and trust of the people in other countries. India seems not to have understood this fact. Krishna\'s visit and issues he raised and discussed with Nepali leaders have reflected this long-held Indian policy towards Nepal. The sole objective of his visit was to build positive image of India in Nepal in the wake of failure of India\'s Nepal policy. The formation of the Maoist-UML coalition government headed by Jhala Nath Khanal was attributed to the failure of the India\'s Nepal policy. India was against the formation of the present Maoist-UML coalition government headed by Jhalanath Khanal and New Delhi has dubbed this government as an anti-Indian coalition. In fact, this government is against any particular country but a government formed at the initiative of Nepali parties and leaders that shunned external meddling. India had desired for the continuity of earlier UML-Nepali Congress government headed by Madhav Kumar Nepal. As a matter of fact, India backed only those who were rejected by the people. This was also one of the reasons that has created a bad image of India in Nepal. Madhav Nepal was defeated in the election from two constituencies but he was the closest chum of New Delhi and wanted him to continue. The sole reason of India\'s support to Madhav Nepal and his government was due to his policy and role to serve the interest of India right from the ratification of Mahakali Treaty. In the past, India\'s role was vital in every political change or formation of the new government. India now wants the Maoists out of power simply because the Maoists did not toe with New Delhi\'s line when they were in power two years ago. India has claimed to have played midwifery role in bringing the Maoists and the seven parties together for signing the 12-point agreement that not only made the Jana Andolan II possible but also brought the Maoists into the peaceful politics. When the Maoists went to power leading a coalition government after their emergence as the single largest party in the Constituent Assembly election, New Delhi demanded its dividends. India had expected that the Maoists would do what India had wanted in Nepal, for which New Delhi had proposed some new proposals including the extradition treaty. However, as a patriotic force, the Maoists refused to compromise in Nepal\'s national interests. Moreover, the Maoists tried to have equal relationship with India and China on the basis of mutual benefits. This Maoist policy irked India which was one of the reasons for the collapse of Prachanda-led Maoist government. The Indian influence is dwindling slowly in Nepal in recent years. The general and overall sentiment in Nepali is against India\'s attitude towards Nepal as New Delhi often tries to keep everything in Nepal\'s under its grip. Since Nepal is an independent country which has never been a colony of any country and has its own distinct character and independent policy throughout the history, Nepali people cannot tolerate any kind of neo-colonialism that India has tried to impose upon Nepal. Even during the height of British colonial power that kept most part of South Asia under its grip, Nepal kept its independence intact. British has also tried to take over Nepal but their bid failed because of the velour of Nepalese warriors in the Anglo-Nepal war which forced the British to accept Nepal as an independent country. But independent and democratic India has been a problem for Nepal\'s independence and its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Right after the independence, Indian leaders including Jawaharlal Nehru and Home Minister BB Patel adopted hawkish and expansionist policy which their successors continue even today. The annexation of Sikkim, which was an independent Himalayan nation, and taking over Kashmir are the testimony of the India\'s expansionist policy. The Indian expansionist policy is the main threat to Nepal\'s sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is reflected in the present India\'s Nepal policy as well. As and when there is a political turmoil, instability and transformation, India always pokes its nose and interferes in Nepal frequently and its acts are always against the genuine interests of the Nepalese people. The failure of preventing the Maoists coming to power is being taken by the Indian establishment as the failure of India policy in Nepal. The India\'s neighborhood policy is the principal reason for this failure. However, the people that are responsible in handling Nepal affairs including the current Indian ambassador Rakesh Sood are more responsible in fueling anti-India sentiments in Nepal. Ambassador Sood was greeted with black flags and shoes on several occasions because of his hawkish and undiplomatic role that has created bad image of India in the mind of Nepali people. The mission of Krishna\'s high-level team was to reverse this image and ensure that India\'s influence in Nepal\'s politics would continue. However, Krishna failed in his mission. Although he tried to bring together some so-called India friendly groups and people, Krishna could not do anything to break the present Maoist-UML coalition in the first place. Secondly, Krishna tried to woo Maoist leader Prachanda and bring him into India\'s fold, perhaps, with some new assurances. But Prachanda openly rebuffed and demanded that India cease its interference in Nepal and behave properly in accordance with the universally accepted diplomatic norms. Prachanda also demanded that Nepal-India relation be developed on equal footing and on the basis of mutual equality. This was not expected by India as no other leader, perhaps, especially after the 1990 political change had ever dared say so. Krishna’s visit was, thus, aimed at keeping the non-Maoist forces together so that the Maoists can be contained in accordance with India\'s grand design. This is India\'s flawed policy which is doomed to fail. India wanted to show the world that Nepali parties were not competent and capable to handle their affairs and under this pretext New Delhi wanted its direct and more naked interference in Nepal. But Nepali parties failed India\'s design and they have demonstrated that the Nepali parties are very much capable of handling their affairs on their own.
Comments
Post a Comment