Newslook :: Nepal's Premiere Online Newsmagazine, Since 1999

• style='font-family:Arial'> href="http://www.timesofindia.com/070101/07sprp1.htm"
target="http://www.timesofindia.com/070101/07sprp1.htm"> style='font-family:Arial'>The kingdom under a cloud style='font-family:Arial'>

The special report starts with a positive note: "India and Nepal should be the best of friends. There are too many links that bind them." Observing that the "year-end Hrithik hangama has reopened questions about the irritants that bedevil our ties", it attempts to explore "the chinks in the relationship that should have been as firm as the Himalayas." What are those chinks and how do the Time's writers-- Jug Surya, Karan Singh, S. Balakrishna, Ashok K. Mehta-- see they could be made firm? Oh, yes, Manisha Koirala's interview could be seen as a balancing act. The fact is that the newspaper's special report, a hastily compiled 'say it when circumstances warrant' kind of thing it is, could have been much more illuminating had it drawn from at least a few serious Nepal-India scholars. For instance, they could perhaps dwell on issues concerning more than 10 million Nepalis living in India, Maoists using Indian soil, Indian connection in Nepal hydro-power industry, Kalapani occupation by Indian troops, Nepal's transit rights, Bhutanese refugee impasse, to name a few. As long as these irritants are there the chips of goodwill and culture are going to remain shaky. Nepal's instability is certanly not a good thing. But it is hard to imagine how a long-instable country such as India, with bulging hot spots like Kashmir and Assam, could venture into righting the wrongs in Nepal. See for yourself how the following pieces in the "special report" visualize a stronger bond between the two countries:

• Notes from Nepal
Jug Surya, a self-proclaimed Nepal friend, who first fell in love with the country 31 years ago because of Kathmandu-- which initiated him to consumer choice, a hallmark of democracy-- relates how Indians used to flock to Nepal to buy Chinese, Janpanese and global goods, how local "mischief makers" accused Dev Ananda, an Indian film actor, of having desecrated a national shrine, (which he calls "shades of Hritik hangama"), how less adroit was New Delhi, especially Rajiv Gandhi's government who stalled the re-signing of the trade and transit treaty in 1989, how New Delhi's mandarins pronounced that they "won't tolerate the tyranny of the weak" in the pretext that Nepal was being used to dump third-country products into India etc. India-inspired democracy in Nepal, he adds, was a third country product, too; a Westminster-model democracy passed on to Nepal via India. He writes, "Fair play has repeatedly been a casualty in Indo-Nepali relations, which spin like a yo-yo between irrational exuberance and exuberant irrationality." His Question: Is democracy - inspired by India - the culprit, the victim, or both simultaneously?

The problems, as he sees them: In ten years there have been 10 prime ministers. "Corruption is an epidemic disease. There is little or no governance, at any level. Bandhs, strikes and `chaka jams', erupt out of nowhere. Bands of insurgents inspired by Maoism, what he calls "another third country product", have declared a virtual civil war in several pockets of the country, which has resulted into killing innnocent people. The police are incapable of taking on the militants. The cabinet's formal request before the monarch to deploy the army would imply an implicit admission of failure of governance and submission to Palace authority. Is there - as some believe - a secret collusion between the extreme left and the far right to discredit democracy? If so, what is, or ought to be, India's role, if any? Can New Delhi afford to be a passive spectator of political adventurism - and the consequent economic and social turmoil it generates - in its backyard? Remembering Sri Lanka, should India intervene - if asked to - and if so, how? And whom should it consider as a legitimate emissary were such a request made? "

Kathmandu, Surya says, initiated him 31 years ago, to consumer choice, a hallmark of democracy. "As an individual, and as an Indian, I'd like to reciprocate that gesture now. By ensuring that Nepal has the space it needs to make its own choices, be the product toothpaste or political truth."

• The Himalayan bond
Karan Singh, an Indian married into Rana family, writes he finds that he has Nepali relatives wherever he travels in India, except for the southern peninsula. Have the cultural links-- Hiduism, Buddhism, marital relationships between people's from both countries, the Gurkha connection, Indian businesses in Nepal, Nepalese employment in India etc.-- strengthened our political ties, he asks. "Unfortunately the relations between India and Nepal have not been politically as cordial as one may have expected. However, these deep cultural ties do represent a strong foundation upon which such a relationship can be built. The growth of the so called `Maoists' in Nepal who, going by their name, can be presumed not to have any strong religious affiliation, is a factor which has disturbing implications for the future."

• Indians have bulldozed into Nepal's economy
S. Balakrishna reports from Kathmandu that over the years, Nepal has veritably become a suburb of India. A large number of Indians have made the Himalayan kingdom their home. This includes businessmen, clerical staff and even labourers. He sites wide knowledge of Hindi language, visa-free travel across the border, popularity of Hindi films, dramatically increasing Indian imports in Nepal to support his argument. Also: Lakhs of Indians visit Nepal as tourists, and lakhs of Nepalese are employed in India. The result: This has created a money-order-economy here. He writes, "While all these may warm the cockles of Indian hearts, the fact remains that there is increasing resentment against Indians here...New Delhi's utter lack of sensitivity to Nepalese sentiments has created a groundswell of resentment against Indians."

Plus this: Without simmering discontent against India, the ISI would not be able to convert the recent anti-Hrithik Roshan agitation into a movement against India. Balakrishna writes that Indian businessmen have penetrated into the Nepalese economy and thus stifle the growth of the local bourgeoisie. He quotes sources at Nepalese Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry as saying that Indian businessmen have simply bulldozed their way into the local economy. "The irony is that many Indian businessmen claim that they are Nepalese! Indian tourists have in their own way contributed to anti-Indian resentment, such as their interpreting of flights delays as something typical to Nepal. That flight schedules back home are no better is conveniently overlooked. South Block has done precious little to correct the situation. No wonder the Pakistanis and the Chinese are happy to fish in the troubled waters of the Baghmati."

• India should be sensitive to its poorer neighbours: Manisha Koirala
Times of India, then, has celebrity Manisha Koirala say something that would matter. Manisha's quick answers to Abhijit Majumder's half-a dozen questions relate to discrimination against Nepalis in India, her reaction to Hritik controversy, her national credentials, trafficking of Nepali girls in India, and her future plans, if any, to join poliitics. Manisha's personal experience is that there has been absolutely no discrimination, and that she has never been made to feel that she is an outsider. She says, "In the past, people who came from Nepal (I don't want to name them) and became celebrities here were scared to reveal the country of their origin. They feared they would be treated unequally. But I have never made my origins a secret from the beginning and I have never faced any disparity." What about the ordinary migrants from Nepal? Manisha knows only some Nepalese people in Bombay. She hasn't met anybody who's unhappy. But she is quick to point out: "See, the basic nature of human beings is to seek better opportunities. Since Nepal is an extremely poor country, the migration to India at the common man's level is like villagers coming to the city to earn a better living. And they are accepted in India in that light."

As for the Hrithik controversy in Nepal, Manisha goes further than merely blaming the ISI, the Inter-Services Intelligence of Pakistan. "The other day," she says, "I read a press report which made some incisive observations on the issue. The trouble took such massive proportions probably because there were pent up emotions back in Nepal about India. India should be sensitive to its comparatively poorer neighbours like Nepal and Bangladesh. Merely blaming the Inter-Services Intelligence does not help. Maybe there's nothing wrong on India's part, but it always helps to introspect." Does she agree with a section of the Nepalis who say she does not not represent Nepal's culture and the problems of its youth in India and she is more Indian than Nepali? Pat comes the familiar answer: "That's rubbish. I am a nationalist. But I am not in India on a diplomatic mission. I am here as an artiste. That's my job." Another humiliating question: How aware is she of the rampant trafficking of Nepalese girls to red light areas in India? She is aware. "But this is a problem which the Nepalese government alone cannot solve. A strong NGO network needs to be in place. People's action and grassroots level reforms are also needed because the problem stems from larger problems like poverty and illiteracy." May be, many of the problems could be solved provided Nepal's future guaranteed able leaders and leardership. So then, for instance, will Manisha have any plans to join politics? Read between the lines: (Smiles) "Well, it runs in the family. But no, I am not interested now."

• Turning to reality
So what is reality? Disaffect Nepal and you see anarchy in India. At least Ashok K Mehta sees it that way. Mehta, a retired Indian Gurkha gneral who writes frequently about Nepal, cites a 1919 British Foreign Office document, which noted ``Nepal is in a position to exercise powerful influence on India's internal stability and if it were disaffected, the anarchy would spill over. Nepal is also a very valuable counterpoise to Afghan and Muslim movements to the west and north of Afghanistan.''

He observes that history tells it all-- things have changed, things are changing, and this reality has surfaced now. The British saw value in Nepal's strategic location, it was Tibet, not Nepal that they wanted as a buffer with China. He argues that some Nepal leaders played China card, despite King Prithvinarayan Shah's polity of treading carefully between its two giant neighbours, China and India, partly because they perceived China as more powerful and India as soft-state. But, he writes, Nepal's perception of India as a weak and indecisive country changed after the 1971 military victory in East Pakistan, the peaceful nuclear explosion of 1974, unification of Sikkim in 1975, the economic blockade of Nepal in 1988, restoration of democracy there in 1990, India's 1998 nuclear tests and Kargil. So what? "China card was no longer usable. Old threats were giving way to new challenges. Therefore, Nepalese find some provisions of the 1950 Treaty dated and restrictive of their sovereignty."

Mehta argues that 1950 treaty between the two coutries, which coincided with the Chinese takeover of Tibet, was a result of India's security concerns."The text of the articles and letter accompanying the Treaty related to threats from a foreign aggressor (read China) and the joint response mechanism. The hidden threat was from a direct takeover of Nepal and/or a Communist-led/inspired insurgency." But things have changed, Mehta perceives. He writes, "Soon after the advent of democracy in Nepal, which coincided with the proxy war in Kashmir, the ISI and Kashmiri militants, thanks to a burgeoning Muslim population in Nepal, spread their tentacles. Worse, a Maoist insurgency has rocked the country since 1995. Clearly the new threats to Nepal are internal strife, political instability and ethnic conflict. Unabated agitation by students is fanning dissonance. The strife and anarchy can spill over only into India." He sees the need to redefine the 1950 treaty. But why? " The 1923 Treaty had a provision ``preventing the use of each other's territory for purposes inimical to the security of the other.'' This provision did not find mention in the 1950 Treaty. The foreign aggressor has changed. Pakistan is on the way to replacing China. For these very reasons alone, the 1950 Treaty which hurts and irritates the Nepalese needs to be redefined."

Mehta observes that drowned in the cacophony of anti-India rhetoric is the traditional resonance from the Gurkha soldiers of Nepal in the Indian Army. As a retired major who commanded a Gurkha regiment in the Indian Army, he wonders, as always, how Nepalis could be anti-Indians. "Gurkhas have fought valiantly for India's independence and territorial integrity. So how can Nepal be anti-India and at the same time, its Gurkhas lay down their lives in Kargil?" But now no more wondering, beacause, he claims that now, the ISI in the guise of the Pakistan embassy in Kathmandu has begun reaching out to Gurkha soldiers in distress.

WEB LINKS

Times of India Special Nepal Report: The kingdom under a cloud
• The kingdom under a cloud
• Notes from Nepal
• The Himalayan bond
• Indians have bulldozed into Nepal's economy
• India should be sensitive to its poorer neighbours: Manisha Koirala
• Turning to reality

• Newslook full coverage of Malkani controversy
• Indian Freedom fighter challenges Malkani's "preposterous, mischievous" claim
• Newslook full coverage of Hritik controversy