Corruption and emerging India

Its been a long time I used my Blog to record my thoughts.
Many things are happening in and around my world. The Television cries every day with corruption stories from Kalmadi to Raja. The amount of corruption is mind boggling. If it is spend to feed the hungry at least 50% of 21% hungry Indians can be fed through out the year. 50% of 49% underweight children could be rehabilitated. But who talks about the development of the "faceless" population. I have started to believe that the nonpoor wants these "faceless" to vanish from this earth so that the country can proudly say "we have no poor in our country, we have significant growth, our infrastructure is good." What an irony in one hand 1.83 million children die every year in India, 21% of population go to bed hungry everyday and on the other hand lacks of crores of money is swindled evry year which could have saved these 1.83 million lives, fed the 21% hungry stomachs. And on top of it Barack Obama declares "India is not emerging but already emerged".
The corporate espionage and govt official nexus is another hole in the development of India. It is not public servant but even the army officials are in this contest, look at the issue of Adarsh nagar scandal.
This is the emerging India where Corruption is rampant and Prime minister taps (loving) the corrupt, corporates justifies their mischief, politicians change the side.

Where are the Indian Poor: Tendulkar report

Perspectives on India’s riches

By Jyoti Mukhia
India is the country of two Indias: Shining India and Suffering India.
The Shining India:
India was positioned at 12th among the wealthiest nations by World Bank in 2005 based on the GDP, wealthier than Mexico, Russia and Australia but lagging behind China which was at 4th position.
According to recent Forbe’s list (2009) of Wealthiest people in the world, there are 23 billionaires in India with combined net worth of $99bn, surpassing former Asian leader Japan’s 27 billionaires with their total worth of $67bn. Out of top 100 billionaires India’s contribution is 6 billionaires whereas US has 36 top 100 billionaires. India ranks 7th in the number of dollar-billionaires, after America, Mexico, Sweden and Germany. Yet, we rank 134th in human development.
The news of the newly-minted Indian billionaires and the obscenity of riches of IPL are bringing sharper focus on the growing rich-poor gap in India. The list appearing in public domain through media regarding top 10 highest paid salaries CEOs, suggests that the number has increased both in size and numbers.[1] The list is being added by new debuts every year meaning thereby that more and more people of fat and vulgar salaries are being born in India.
On the one hand, 23 Indian billionaires constituted 25% of India’s GDP while on the other, 70% of Indians had to do with Rs 20 a day and a farmer commits suicide every 30 minutes, husband sells his wife in lieu of debt waiver from landlord.
The top 10 per cent of the richest Indians are 7.3 times richer than the poorest 10 per cent.[2] India, according to data from the CIA World Fact Book has a PPP of $3700, while countries like the US are way ahead with $43,500 and the UK at 31,400. Brazil is also higher than us at $8,600. So even if the top ten percent of people in the US are obscenely rich, the poor there aren’t as poor as the poor in India.[3] On the basis of the prosperity Index India is at 45th position out of 104 countries.[4]

India’s poverty Estimates:
Estimates for India indicate a continuing decline in poverty. The estimates suggest that the percentage of people living below $1.25 a day in 2005 (based on India’s PPP rate, works out to Rs 21.6 a day in urban areas and Rs 14.3 in rural areas in 2005) decreased from 60% in 1981 to 42% in 2005. Even at a dollar a day (Rs 17.2 in urban areas and Rs 11.4 in rural areas in 2005)[5] poverty declined from 42% to 24% over the same period. Our poverty line has decreased and a sizeable chunk of our poor have moved up the economic scale to become middle-class (300 million today).
Although India has had significant success in reducing the number of the poorest of its poor - those living on less than a dollar a day – there are still a huge number of people living just above this line of deprivation. This is most evident when we study absolute numbers. The number of people living below a dollar a day is down from 296 million in 1981 to 267 million people in 2005. However, the number of poor below $1.25 a day has increased from 421 million in 1981 to 456 million in 2005. This the biggest challenge facing India today. This indicates that there are a large number of people living just above this line of deprivation (a dollar a day) and their numbers are not falling.[6]
Paradox: the suffering India
Despite the facts that there has been a decline in the incidence of poverty over the past two decades, and annual growth rates that cross eight percent, one in four persons in India still lives below the income poverty line. The health indicators and socio-economic indicators do not speak eulogy for us.
According to World Health Organization, about 49% of the World’s underweight children and 34% of the World’s stunted children and 46% of World’s wasted children live in India. India has the largest number of working children in the world, and accounts for 20% of the world’s out of school children. Girls’ life chances, in particular, are often severely limited, so much so that in some areas the number of girls has fallen to less than 800 per 1,000 boys. On contrary to this, about 83, 000 Indians have liquid assets more than 1 Million dollars. There are millions of people who own more than 5 palatial buildings whereas there are hundreds of thousands of people who sleep under sky.
There are still hundreds of villages and towns which are not electrified and connected with good roads. We use mineral waters in cities whereas; people in many rural areas do not have access to safe drinking water. There are millions of homeless people and Indira Awas Yojna, a flagship scheme for providing homes to BPL families is still to provide even the minimum space required homes to all eligible BPL families. On the other hand there are people who spend 700 crore on one building to live in.
Amartya Sen has rightly said that growth without democratic distribution brings no prosperity in the country, after all the ongoing financial crisis and global recession has been caused due to ‘privatizing profits and socializing losses’ and if we want to create sustainable social and economic order, we will have to distribute the profits also and not only losses.

[1] Persons like Mukesh Ambani who tops the list gets more than 44 crore (440 million) as annual salary, whereas as Pawan Kant Munjal of hero Honda gets more than Rs/-150 million per annum.
[2] The rich in countries like Brazil are 57.8 times richer than the poor, and the ratio for the United Kingdom is 13.8 times, the United States almost 15.9 times, China 18.4 times and Russia 12.7 times. More horrifying – the top ten per cent of Bolivia’s population is 168 times richer than its poorest 10 percent! The ratio for Namibia is 129 times and Lesotho 129 times.
[3] Being poor by American standards didn’t mean insufficient food. It didn’t mean starvation. It meant not having a car and depending on social security. Perhaps being homeless and falling back on government shelters.
[4] Poor but rich - dnaindia.com A survey by Legatum Institute. The index looked at variable like democratic institutions, personal freedom and social capital.
[5] Economic and political weekly, October 2008
[6] ibid

US ropes in Pak security experts, India jittery

Indrani Bagchi, TNN

NEW DELHI: As new US Centcom commander General David Petraeus begins a strategy security review in Tampa, Florida, the presence of two security
analysts from Pakistan as consultants have raised eyebrows here. Ahmed Rashid, an acknowledged authority on the Taliban and Afghanistan, and Shuja Nawaz, author of a book on the Pakistan army, have been named "consultants" at the classified review starting in Florida this weekend. The aim is to review the war plans in Afghanistan and Iraq as the Barack Obama administration considers the wisdom of a troop surge in Afghanistan. About 100 military specialists, known as the Joint Strategic Assessment Team, will help with the wide-ranging assessment and are expected to report in February. They will be helped by policy officials from the participating countries. India's concern stems from the possibility that Rashid's latest recommendation of the "grand bargain" to solve Afghanistan's mammoth problems of security and terrorism may have found fertile ground in the Obama set. Certainly, the central argument in the article draws the same connections between "solving" terrorism in Afghanistan and "solving" Kashmir that Obama has been advocating for a while, including in the same journal some time ago. In a much quoted article in the esteemed 'Foreign Affairs' journal, Rashid and America's best known Afghanistan expert Barnett Rubin wrote that Pakistan would be persuaded to stop supporting terrorism if India can be persuaded to solve Kashmir, which they argue to be a bigger strategic threat to Pakistan than terrorists on their soil, which "can be controlled". This is a "grand bargain" that India will not support. However, sources said, it's premature to be hyperventilating about such a diplomatic initiative. Indian policymakers believe that once the new US administration takes shape, the realities of the situation will become much clearer to the new Washington. At its worst, India expects to have to do some diplomacy to counter any such perceptions. The Rashid-Rubin article goes on to make the following suggestions:
• Pakistan should not be "pressured", because its security establishment believes that it is threatened by a US-India-Afghan alliance to dismember Pakistan.
• Pakistan's military command continues to believe the two-nation theory and wants Kashmir to be incorporated into the South Asian homeland for Muslims. To this extent, Afganistan, they say, is "within Pakistan's security perimeter".
Pakistan continues to believe that the Indian threat is superior to stabilizing Afghanistan. The article goes on to recommend a "contact group on
the region authorized by the UN Security Council. This contact group, including the five permanent members and perhaps others (NATO, Saudi Arabia), could promote dialogue between India and Pakistan about their respective interests in Afghanistan and about finding a solution to the Kashmir dispute." According to the article, the rest of the world should be involved in a single exercise — to "reassure Pakistan" that it is under no threat. And the best way to do that would be to "resolve Kashmir". Only then will Pakistan lift its umbrella of support of terrorists and terrorism. In short, Pakistan should be rewarded for its support to terrorism. "A central purpose of the contact group would be to assure Pakistan that the international community is committed to its territorial integrity — and to help resolve the Afghan and Kashmir border issues so as to better define Pakistan's territory," the article says. For good measure, the US should consider a nuclear deal for Pakistan and India should "become more transparent" about its activities in Afghanistan, it adds.

Will an “untouchable” become India’s Obama?

By: Alistair Scrutton

Will a Dalit, or “untouchable” become India’s Obama? That is the question being posed by some commentators in the India press after the United States elected their first black president.
One Dalit woman, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh known as Mayawati, is the first person to come to mind. Her astonishing rise from Dalit teacher to head of India’s most populous state has led to speculation she could be a prime ministerial candidate in 2009.

For an interesting article on the subject, read “Waiting for India’s Obama” by T.K Arun.
Unlike the United States, which directly elects a president, Mayawati could win power in parliamentary system through negotiations between India’s political parties after the general elections, due by May.
There is evidence her Dalit-based party could become the third biggest party in the election, becoming a possible kingmaker.
In one sense Mayawati could represent an even greater revolution than Obama in a country where Dalits have been oppressed for centuries and who still suffer the kind of discrimination that reminds oneself of the United States’ Deep South in the 1950s.
On the other hand, as some commentators point out, Mayawati parades her caste to win over Dalits. Obama reached out across the race spectrum and did not use his colour. He campaigned mostly on policy. Maywati has made headlines as much for allegations of corruption and excess — such as erecting statues in her honour — as original policy ideas.
I went to Mayawati’s birthday party in Lucknow this year. There, she had the various top public figures, from police chiefs and civil servants and politicians, finger feed her with cake. Most of them were upper caste.
Will she be asking the same of Sonia Gandhi in New Delhi after the general elections?

How Obama should view India

Mr Obama has to decide whether he wants to push India into a corner or whether he will see that America has India where it wants, says T. C. A. SRINIVASA-RAGHAVAN.

This can happen only once in the life of the universe. An African-American has become the President of the US, and it is my turn to write on this page.
So, much as I would like to berate the Finance Minister for what he is doing to the economy, the markets, banks, institutions and regulators, I am afraid that will have to wait. After all, he is not going to stop, is he?
This US election is historic. Don’t forget: The last lynching of a black man took place a mere 73 years ago in 1935, within the lifetime of at least 40 per cent of Americans. Until the 1960s, inter-racial marriages were not allowed in many parts of the US. Why, blacks and whites could not even eat together. So without doubt, this change is as monumental as the one I expect in India next year — Ms Mayawati as prime minister.History was made
Still, one has to ask the question: Have the Americans voted for the Democrats or for Obama? Would Mrs Clinton have won, too, had she been nominated, or any other candidate from the Democratic Party? Definitely, because after the economic crisis, it has been curtains for the Republicans. Even if, in the unlikely event, they had fielded a black candidate, they were goners.
In that sense, history was really made when the Democrats chose a black man — but over a woman. They had the courage and the political sagacity to pose a choice between two hitherto forbidden categories. That was the real act of daring. It has paid off.
Hundreds of thousands of words will be written over the next few weeks in India on Barack Obama. Even worse, millions of words will be spoken on TV. However, when the dust settles, it will all boil down to just one thing —what’s in store for India over the next four years. The answer will depend on how well the new President balances his domestic political constituencies and personal beliefs — and hobby horses — with the imperatives of foreign policy.
As long as India didn’t figure in the US foreign policy calculus, it wasn’t hard to achieve the balance. But since the collapse of the USSR, and the emergence of China as a possible long-term threat to American security and, more recently, the terrorism thing, India has gradually begun to matter more.
That is why in his first term, Bill Clinton adopted a much tougher approach towards India than in his second term, when India began to appear as a possible ally against China. In fact, the great, unanswered question is if it had not been required by law, would Clinton have imposed sanctions on India after Pokhran-II? Any number of studies had shown that sanctions don’t work. Few people give Clinton the credit, but it was he who turned things around.
George W. Bush only took that soft approach forward, until he bought off India with the nuclear deal. Now — if I may borrow a phrase from James Hadley Chase — when the US says jump, India says how high, that too on the way up. On that at least, Prakash Karat and Co. are right.
But then, until 1985, India used to ask the same question of the USSR. Remember Indira Gandhi, despite being furious with the USSR, did not condemn its occupation of Afghanistan?
Indeed, if you ask the pros, they will tell you that India’s foreign policy independence has always been something of a myth, especially after 1971. In South Block, at least, it signifies that a joint secretary has been over-ruled and is leaking stories to the press.Indo-US relations
There is also a belief in India that the Democrats treat India worse than the Republicans do. I examined this notion recently while collaborating on a monograph on Indo-US relations for the Institute of South Asian Studies of Singapore (ISAS).
I found that on the economic side, at least, this is as much of a myth as India following an independent foreign policy is.
I also discovered something else: American advice, when taken, has never harmed India and has, in fact, always benefited it. Even more strikingly, the opposite is also true: whenever India has ignored American advice, it has paid a price, sometimes a rather heavy one.
India ignored American advice in the 1950s to build steel plants in the private sector, and paid for it.
It took American advice in 1966, under duress though, to build fertiliser plants and go for high-yielding varieties, and benefited from the resulting Green Revolution.
Then, in 1971, India went into the Soviet camp and dropped off the world economic map. But don’t forget: It was American help in the nuclear field that helped in Pokhran-I in 1974.
It was not until 1991 that India, once again on its knees, just as it was in 1966, became ‘receptive’ to US advice on reforms, delivered via the IMF. It has paid off, in more ways than one. If India is something on the world economic stage today, America has been a major factor in our getting there.
This has not come without a price. India has had to accede to US demands on the two things that matter most to America: Market access, especially in the financial sector; and non-proliferation.Why push too hard?
Not surprisingly, India has not only opened up its financial markets, when it has dragged its feet — for good reason — the Finance Ministry has turned against the Reserve Bank of India which is the supervisory authority for the financial sector. And, of course, there is the nuclear deal, which basically tells India that it will get the goodies till it doesn’t carry out any more nuclear tests.
The real issue, therefore, that Mr Obama has to decide is whether he wants to push India into corners over things like Kashmir, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and outsourcing, or whether he will have the good sense to see that America has India where it wants, and that the rest is a matter of detail. Unlike in the past, India is not only co-operating, it has nowhere else to go. So why push too hard?
But it is not as if only India has nowhere to go. Even the US needs India for its markets and its (so far supposed) ability to be able to resist China’s advance into the Indian Ocean and to counter China’s influence in East Asia. This ought to give India some room for manoeuvre if Mr Obama trots off on a tangent.
Net-net: We can expect some turbulence that comes in the wake of a big change, but really nothing much more than that.
Illustration by Rajesh
Related Stories:India-US relations — What will happen after Bush era?Advantage, Obama!

What India wants from the new president

NEW DELHI: Barack Obama enters the White House riding the crest of history. The sense of promise —of restoring America's primacy in the world — will by and large be welcomed in India. Certainly, in large parts of the world, Obama will be a welcome change after eight years of George Bush, whose efforts to change the world as he found it had some disastrous consequences. Obama will be a breath of fresh air in almost every part of the world. And to the extent, there is a growing convergence between the two democracies. India can only hope to benefit from a rejuvenated US leadership. Why, then, is India keeping her fingers crossed? Over the past eight years, as George Bush wielded his scythe, in a strange sort of way, he helped to change the way the world looked at India. In many ways, the way India herself looked at India. India has gotten used to being on top of the US president's mindspace, whether as an exceptional democracy, a rising power or as the beneficiary of a unique nuclear agreement which pulled India out of a technology hole. India successfully "de-hyphenated" from Pakistan giving itself a lot of international legroom. In an Obama administration, the India-US story could grow bigger. Or not. There is little clarity on how the chips will fall on several issues in the Obama-India dynamic, issues that are very close to India. In order of precedence, they would be Pakistan, China, terrorism, nuclear issues, trade, all issues on which India has had a prickly relationship with the Democrat party vision. Obama's own advisers are upbeat on the India question. Refusing to come on record on election day, those that TOI spoke to said an Obama that restores America's place in the world is exactly what India needs. "Obama is a 21st century leader. He understands that the US needs other major powers to get things done, and that certainly includes India.... Ultimately, India needs a US that is respected and able to get things done in the world, and Obama will help restore that." But, Obama is yet to clarify his strategic vision of India. One of the reasons why the Bush presidency was good for India was that Bush proceeded from a simple premise — that India, warts and all, deserved an exception from the international system. US specialist on South Asia, Ashley Tellis, one of the main architects of the nuclear deal did a quick preview of Obama's India policy. "Obama says he will sustain the relationship with India. His administration will likely be dominated by people who view the relationship with China as the most important US relationship in Asia, and by individuals who have difficulty accepting either the legitimacy or the reality of India's nuclear weapons." From all accounts, Obama starts out with the right ideas, of taking forward the India-US relationship. Early 2008, after an India gaffe in 2007 (when his campaign described Hillary Clinton as D-Punjab), he wrote a piece for an Indian-American newspaper where he said, "The world's oldest democracy (US) and the world's largest democracy (India) are natural partners, sharing important interests and fundamental democratic values... And that is why I will move forward to build a close strategic partnership between the US and India when I am president of the United States." However, his commitment to removing the sources of terror from Pakistan-Afghanistan may have the unfortunate effect of reviving yet another form of "hyphenation", this time on terrorism, which will be far more dangerous, certainly so far as India is concerned. While on the one hand he says he wants to appoint former US president Bill Clinton as his special envoy on Kashmir, in another recent interview, Obama said, "We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they can stay focused not on India but on the situation with those militants." This is clearly a considered position, because on September 25, in another interview to Arms Control Today, Obama said, "I will continue support of the ongoing Indian-Pakistani efforts to resolve the Kashmir problem in order to address the political roots of the arms race between India and Pakistan." This is not music to Indian ears. It shows only one thing — that there will be a long period of painful diplomatic exchanges before the Obama administration can be made to realise that the "Kashmir problem" is just an alibi for Pakistan as it seeks to secure its objectives in Afghanistan and have its way vis-a-vis India. Many of Obama's advisers are still in the "solve Kashmir" phase, between India and Pakistan. Why this can cause complications for India? As the US gets more involved in disentangling Pakistan and Afghanistan from terrorism, Taliban and al-Qaida, it will be tempting, for Democrats to push a "Kashmir solution" as a carrot for Pakistan to undertake tough policies on its northwestern border. Already Pakistan army chief Ashfaque Kiyani has reportedly told US generals that he cannot concentrate whole-heartedly on two borders at once. This argument has clearly been made after Pakistan detected "fertile ground" in the Obama camp. In his article in Foreign Affairs, Obama showed a dangerous misreading of the issue. "I will join with our allies in insisting not simply requesting that Pakistan crack down on the Taliban, pursue Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and end its relationship with all terrorist groups. At the same time, I will encourage dialogue between Pakistan and India to work towards resolving their dispute over Kashmir and between Afghanistan and Pakistan to resolve their differences and develop the Pashtun border region. If Pakistan can look towards the east (India) with confidence, it will be less likely to believe its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban." India has faced this argument before and successfully defeated it thus — that Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in Afghanistan is of a piece with the violence in Kashmir. Bowing to the Pakistani argument would be tantamount encouraging Pakistan believe that terrorism as a foreign policy tool actually works. Which, of course would be disastrous to Obama's real objective of cleaning out the Taliban. Obama, for that matter, the Democrat establishment, are eight years behind the curve on US-India relations, which are on a completely different trajectory now.
On nuclear issues, despite the nuclear deal, India is likely to find the going tough with the Obama crowd. Some of the deal's best known critics
like Strobe Talbott and Robert Einhorn are likely to find prominent jobs in the US nuclear establishment — and their dislike of the Indian nuclear deal as well as India's nuclear weapons in general is not going to lessen. If the Bush administration sought to push for an "exception" for India, a Democrat administration is likely to do what it can to mitigate it. Remember, despite the much touted bi-partisan support for the nuclear agreement in the US Congress, all naysayers were Democrats. Obama himself is the author of one of the biggest "killer" amendments of the Hyde Act, the Obama amendment to deny lifetime supplies of nuclear fuel to Indian reactors, and needed strong political push by Bush and Manmohan to reverse it in the 123 agreement. Obama eventually voted for the deal but there's a sour note. Therefore, getting licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission wont be easy, as non-proliferation wallahs use the famed American bureaucracy to roll back the effects of the nuclear deal. There is a strong expectation that among the non-proliferation priorities of the Obama administration would be pushing through the CTBT, if he can get his own Congress to agree. That would be another pressure point for India, particularly after Manmohan Singh has gone on record to say that India would not sign the CTBT. On the other hand, Obama supports the global disarmament initiative, started by Kissinger, Perry, Schultz and Nunn. India is a strong votary of the global disarmament efforts too and this could be a better meeting point for the two sides than CTBT. South Block is more likely to push for a full disarmament position than a test ban, which it considers to be "halfway house." The 2008 election campaign has been relatively free of "outsourcing" as an issue, but it is clear that on principle Obama would oppose outsourcing of jobs to countries like India. But here, the battle is best left to the private sector. It may be a little simplistic to suggest that Obama is categorically against outsourcing. In his speeches, he has said he wants to readjust the tax code to offer more tax incentives to companies who do not offshore jobs, but also that he did not want to close America to the "brightest and best from round the world." More recently, he has acknowledged the inevitability of outsourcing, saying that "evolutions in communication and technology have sent jobs wherever there's an internet connection; that have forced children in Raleigh and Boston to compete for those jobs with children in Bangalore and Beijing." In fact, post financial crisis, his views are likely to soften further, as analysts suggest that outsourcing may become more necessary, to cut costs and improve productivity. But then again, he may find greater traction for his views in a weak labour market in the US. Obama has raised the banner for "fair" trade rather than "free" trade, which has already raised eyebrows here among people who look forward to tough trade talks ahead, particularly in the unfinished Doha round. Of course much of the outsourcing is "irreversible" and the debate can safely be left to the private sector to resolve. Will Obama send out different signals on outsourcing of public sector jobs? As a corollary, what would it mean for more professional and tech visas for Indian professionals to the US? Indian and US companies have been clamouring for more H1-B visas, but its likely that a naturally protectionist Democrat administration with their core constituency being labour unions would find it difficult to increase those numbers from present 65,000. Then there is China. Like it or not, China and India will continue to be uttered in the same breath for a whole host of reasons. India has very uncomfortable memories of Bill Clinton in Beijing in June 1998, virtually appointing Beijing the "daroga" for South Asia. Democrats have always viewed the US-China relationship as "special" and generally have a more welcoming view of China. This is unlikely to change particularly in a global situation where China now wields greater clout. India's foreign policy, on the other hand is increasingly going to focus on "dealing with the rise of China" and its implications for India. Whether these two world visions clash or converge need to be seen. The next few months will tell whether the famed "transformation" of the US-India relationship will continue unabated, halted or slowed down. (TOI)

India minus K-word

Jug Suraiya
Is it time the K-word got out of India, and India out of the K-word? Even as Pakistanis in Pakistan celebrated the departure of their erstwhile dictator, Pervez Musharraf, ‘Pakistanis’ in Kashmir agitated for the long overdue exit of an equally, if not more, oppressive dictator: India. The Amarnath dispute and the alleged ‘economic blockade’ have sparked an unprecedented pro-Pakistani sentiment in the Valley, shown by the open display of the crescent flag and the massive anti-India rallies in Srinagar and Pampore. Separatism is no longer driven by fear of militant guns; today separatism is spearheaded by a far more serious threat: that of the popular will. It would be facile to dismiss this groundswell of protest, which cuts across generational lines, as yet another ISI-sponsored stratagem. Kashmir, or at least Kashmir valley, is no longer a ventriloquist’s dummy speaking for its Pakistani masters; Kashmir seems to be speaking for itself. And what it is saying is unequivocal: India must let go of it. Is it really, finally, time for India to relinquish Kashmir, and vice versa? Or, as Arundhati Roy has put it, for Kashmir to gain azadi from India, and for India to gain azadi from Kashmir? Any suggestion that Kashmir should, if it so wants, be allowed to secede from the Indian Union is immediately deemed to be treasonable, and its proponents to be agents of Pakistan’s ISI, who wish to hive off not just Kashmir but to fragment and balkanise India by fomenting insurrection across the country. It is also argued that Kashmir’s secession would diminish India not just geographically but, much worse, it would diminish and fatally wound the very idea of India as a pluralist polity and a multicultural society. More than the possession of any part of its territory, the idea of India is the life-essence of the republic. India can survive without Kashmir,if it has to;it can’t survive without the idea of India, central to which is the right of democratic dissent and the free association of people. Is the idea of India big enough to accommodate the obverse right: the free disassociation of people, non-violent secession from the republic? Secessionist attempts — from Punjab to the north-east, and in some 180 Naxal ‘liberated zones’ (described by the prime minister as the ‘biggest national threat’) — have been and continue to be combatted by force of arms and, equally importantly, force of political persuasion. But all these anti-state manifestations were, or are, based on violence, which the state can legitimately oppose with necessary counter-violence. What Kashmir is reportedly witnessing today is fundamentally different: a cry for freedom backed not by guns but by the power of dissent — one of the foundation stones of the idea of India. Syed Ali Shah Geelani, self-proclaimed leader of the separatist movement, is no M K Gandhi. But what if he and his followers were to adopt the strategies of noncooperation and satyagraha which were used to gain independence, and were the prenatal influences which shaped the idea of India? Could the Indian state use physical force against such a peaceful mass movement — if in fact it did arise, as some say it now has — and still retain its moral idea of itself ? It could — and inevitably will — be argued that drawing a parallel between Gandhi’s ‘Quit India’ movement and contemporary Kashmir’s ‘Quit, India’ upsurge is untenable and unconscionable: the British were an alien occupying force; Kashmir is an integral, constitutionally legitimised part of India. But after more than 60 years of concerted effort — military deployment, repeated elections, the giving of subsidies — India has been unable effectively to counter the demand for azadi. Has the time then come to re-look and rethink the Kashmir issue? By letting Kashmir go peacefully would the idea of India be subverted? Or would it be enlarged and further endorsed? That is the real import of the so-called Kashmir question: it has become the question of the idea of India, and what that idea means to us. (The Times Of India)

India ought to tread cautiously on Nepal

In the run-up to elections in April, Nepalese journalists and political observers routinely pointed to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s “meddling”, especially in the Terai region, from neighbouring Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh

If Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Jaswant Singh ever thought of positioning himself as foreign minister or prime minister with broad appeal in the run-up to the next national elections, then he just blew his chances. On the concluding day of the party’s national executive meeting in New Delhi earlier this week, Singh said he felt “diminished” by the Maoist victory in recent elections in Nepal, going on to add that this was a “negative development.”

Listen to what Singh said, as he released the party’s foreign policy resolution on Monday, as reported by the Hindu newspaper : “As an Indian and a believer in ‘sanatan dharma’ (Hinduism), I feel diminished. … There are four ‘dhams’ (pilgrimage centres) in India and the fifth, Pashupati Nath, is in Nepal. There is nothing more secular than ‘sanatan dharma’. … This is a negative development.”
Singh’s comments confirm the worst fears among a large section of the Nepalese public that large parts of India still haven’t come to terms with the abolition of its Hindu monarchy and attendant rituals. In the run-up to elections in April, Nepalese journalists and political observers routinely pointed to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s (VHP) “meddling”, especially in the Terai region, from neighbouring Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh.
Still, that was the VHP, an extremist faction of the “sangh parivar” (the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or RSS, family), which along with its many godmen sought to influence Nepal’s election result, in the hope that a fractured polity would not be able to remove the world’s only surviving Hindu monarch, Gyanendra. You could have argued that the BJP, a political party which ran the country for six years until 2004, and therefore, presumably, had a better understanding of both history and geopolitics, would have known better. The irony is that Jaswant Singh is one of a handful of leaders across the political spectrum with intimate knowledge of foreign affairs, defence and economics (he was minister in charge of each of these portfolios during the National Democratic Alliance, or NDA, government). As the key interlocutor with then US deputy secretary of state Strobe Talbott, Singh drove home the message to the world’s most powerful country that a nuclear India had come to stay. From Kandahar to Riyadh, via Agra and Ashkabad, Singh was at the centre of India’s foreign policy story as it unfolded over those years.
The short point here is that for Jaswant Singh to have made those remarks about Nepal was not only bad form, it was also bad policy. After all, Singh has dealt with Nepal in his capacity as a key minister of the government of India. For him to say these things about a neighbouring country, especially one which has just held its first free and fair elections, is an exercise in surprising shortsightedness. If Jaswant Singh returns to office and if the Maoists are still in power — two big ifs, of course — you can bet the last of your slip-sliding rupee that Indo-Nepal relations will hit rock-bottom.
In fact, the BJP national executive threw up more surprises. If it wasn’t Jaswant Singh making noises about Nepal, there was Rajnath Singh redefining secularism for the rest of us, in terms of “dharmnirpeksh” (religion-neutral) and “panthnirpeksh” (sect-neutral). As the party savoured the sweet taste of success in Karnataka, it was time, Rajnath Singh felt, for India to move away from the former towards the latter.
In Karnataka’s aftermath, a victory which has considerably added to the national perception that the throne in Delhi is no longer as elusive for the BJP, it was left to L.K. Advani to announce that an expanded NDA will fight the next national elections with parties which “may not be ideologically aligned” to the BJP. Clearly, Advani wants to distance himself further and further away from the 6 December 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid, and mould himself into a leader with broader appeal.
But back to Nepal. The euphoria with which the Maoist-led Constituent Assembly evicted Gyanendra from the Narayanhity palace a week ago is slowly dissipating, as the interim prime minister, G.P. Koirala of the Nepali Congress, refuses to step down. With the Maoists continuing to argue that, as the single largest party, they have the right to both positions of president and prime minister, the political stalemate in Nepal could have disastrous consequences.
According to Nepal’s Kantipur newspaper, the newly installed Indian ambassador, Rakesh Sood, has met Prachanda, the Maoist chief, to ask him whether his party wants both posts, or would it be happy with just one. Perhaps Sood is trying to broker a compromise between the Maoists and the Nepali Congress, and trying to persuade both sides to respect the verdict of the people, which did not give either party a complete majority.
Sood would be well aware—as is the rest of Nepal—of the statements of his own national security adviser M.K. Narayanan who, barely 10 days before the April elections, announced that New Delhi would like the Nepali Congress to come back to power in Kathmandu. And although, ever since, the government has sought to reassure all parties that it is not interested in taking sides, there are those who believe that New Delhi should weigh in with its old friend Koirala, ask him to step down and concede that the Maoists are at least the single largest political party in the elections.
Truth is, Nepal has always had a special relationship with India. Both the BJP and the Congress party would do well to remember that. (liveMint.com)
Jyoti Malhotra is Mint’s diplomatic affairs editor and writes on the intersection of foreign policy, trade and politics every week.

Sikkim ‘Finger Point’ survey on: Army Chief

NEW DELHI/GANGTOK, May 27: In the backdrop of China laying claim over a tiny border area in Sikkim, India is conducting a survey in the region as part of efforts to revalidate New Delhi's position.While confirming this, Army Chief Gen Deepak Kapoor today sought to downplay the survey, saying there was nothing unusual about it as “we are carrying out such exercises in other places”.He said there is no problem between “us and the other side (China)” in the area, called “Finger Point” in north Sikkim.“Within our territory, we can do survey and patrolling as we have been doing it for years,” he told reporters on the sidelines of a seminar on “Technology and Anti-technology Challenges before Defence Forces” organised by the CII.His comments come days after reports that the government has asked the Survey of India to carry out a fresh survey of the northern plateau in Sikkim using latest methods to validate India's position.In exchanges with Beijing, New Delhi has been relying on the 1924 survey of India map of the area. China also claims 2.1 square km area which is referred as “Finger Area”.“Surveys are normal exercises. Surveys along the border are continuing at a lot of places,” Kapoor said.Also referring to the issue, Minister of State for Defence M M Palam Raju said that both India and China are responsible neighbours and would sort out matters, if any, bilaterally.“We conduct bilateral negotiations for all issues. If there is any issue, we will sort out,” he said.Expressing surprise over recent spate of ceasefire violations in Jammua and Kashmir, Raju said New Delhi was looking for “valid explanation from the other side” on these.ations,” he said as for over five years the sanctity of the ceasefire had been respected both by India and Pakistan.He said after these violations, India was anticipating that there could be more bids made to infiltrate terrorists from across the border. The minister said the armed forces have been asked to maintain strict vigil and foil all attempts by militants to sneak across the LoC.Asked if Border Roads Organisation would be involved in new projects in Afghanistan since the present road project almost approaching completion, he said a request has to come from Afghanistan. (The Statesman)

India downplays Chinese claim on Sikkim land

New Delhi:India on Sunday played down China’s latest claims on a small tract of land in northern Sikkim and called it “minor and local” matter. Government sources said that such claims were not new and that India had responded to the Chinese claims at the appropriate forum. China wants to claim a piece of land in northern Sikkim which is called the “Finger area” by the Indian Army. The boundary in the area is demarcated by stone cairns. The Chinese side has objected to these stone cairns boundary. India has told China that it will not allow Chinese troops into the area and that it would mean a breach of the treaty between the neighbours to maintain peace along the border. The matter was taken up at the routine division commander-level flag meeting in Nathu La where India said that it would not allow Chinese troops to enter the area. The matter was taken up a day at a lunch meeting between Indian officials and a Chinese team in Beijing. This is the latest in a row of border incidents that remain irritants in Sino-India ties. China has continued to stake claim over large parts of Arunachal Pradesh, particularly Tawang. This matter is being discussed between special representatives of the two countries. But even as the discussions continue, China and India have exchanged words over Arunachal. The government has had many occasions to convey to the Chinese that Arunachal is an integral part of India. Recently, China had verbally protested against PM Manmohan Singh’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh. (The Economics Times)

India be wary of US games in Nepal: Mukherjee

by GOPAL KHANAL
NEW DELHI, May 16 - Former Indian ambassador to Nepal Dev Mukherjee on Friday cautioned the Indian government against the games being played by the United States in Nepal as these may provoke strong Chinese reactions.
Speaking here at a seminar on "Emerging situation in Nepal : Policy options for India" organized by Observer Research Foundation, a foreign policy thinktank, he urged Indian authorities to stay out of US games in Nepal.
''If Americans are playing a certain kind of game to deny the Maoists legitimate governance and India is backing them, this could lead to instability due to possible reactions by China, given the conditions in Tibet,'' he said.
"Then all bets would be off. I am worried. India should be aware of all possibilities," Mukharjee warned.
He was referring to reports suggesting that US officials in Kathmandu are counseling Prime Minister Girija Koirala to lead the next government, bypassing the Maoists.
He also said he did not think China would play a too proactive a role in Nepal other than being a neighbor and a big country.
''But, given the increasing US involvement with the Nepalese army, and the games being played by the US, which the Chinese may suspect would affect the conditions in Tibet, then it would lead to Chinese reactions,'' he opined.
He said he sensed that some elements within the Nepali Congress are exerting pressure on Prime Minister Koirala not to hand over power to the Maoists
"Who is instigating them?" Mukharjee asked.
He said Koirala's refusal to budge from the prime minister's office could lead to a constitutional crisis. ''It would be against people's mandate," he said.
However, he hoped that Koirala's stance is only part of a bargaining strategy, considering that only two out of 20 Koirala candidates in the elections won.
He and other speakers hoped the king would have the wisdom to leave the palace before 28th May, when the Constituent Assembly is scheduled to meet.
Experts at the seminar were unanimous that India should be ready for a review of the Indo-Nepal Treaty, as demanded by Maoists, who have emerged as the single largest party in the just concluded Constituent Assembly elections.
Mukherjee said the 1950 treaty has only limited impact, with many clauses dead and ineffective.
He said India and Nepal should go for a comprehensive treaty on equal terms which should be transparent. "It would end decades of India bashing by Nepali politicians who equate nationalism with India bashing," Mukherjee remarked.
CPI leader D. Raja said India should take into account the new situation of a democratically elected government in Nepal. "India has reviewed its treaty with Bhutan. India has also said it is ready to review the treaty with Nepal. I don't think the Indian government will have any objections," he said.
He said the option for India in the emerging situation was to have "better, cordial, friendly relations" with Nepal like with other countries.
Nepal was going through a critical period, he said and hoped that the people and their leaders would have the "sagacity and maturity" to come
out victorious as they
did in their struggle against the monarchy, he said.
"I don't think there would be any worsening of the situation. Earlier, Nepalese political class played manipulative games with the king. State-to-state, transparent relations can improve the relations much better'' Raja said (Kantipuronline)

दिल्ली दरबार सजिलो छैन

भारतको पारस्परिकताको धम्की, माओवादीहरूको जे पनि गर्न सकिने दम्भ र मध्यममार्गी दलहरूको केही पनि गर्न नमिल्ने लिँडेढिपीका बीच नेपालको भारतनीति अन्योलग्रस्त बन्न पुगेको छ।
सीके लाल
राजनीतिले आदर्शको कुरा गर्छ। राजकर्मले यथार्थ ��"ँल्याउँछ। तर, कूटनीतिको दायित्व नीति र परिस्थितिबीचको निरन्तर अन्तर्द्वन्द्वमा नअल्मलिएर राष्ट्र हितका लागि अनवरत रूपमा छवि निर्माणमा लागिरहनुमा सीमित छ। त्यसैले आप्रवासन कानून जति नै कठोर भइसकेको भए तापनि संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिकाले आफूलाई ' मुक्तहरूको भूमि ' भन्न छोडेको छैन। अल्पसङ्ख्यकको परिचयलाई ठाडै अस्वीकार गर्ने फ्रान्सको नारा अहिले पनि ' समता, स्वतन्त्रता र ऐक्यबद्धता ' नै रहेको छ। संसारलाई शोषणको उपनिवेश फैलाइरहेको बेलामा पनि बेलायत आफूलाई ' संसदीय प्रजातन्त्रको जननी ' भन्न रुचाउँथ्यो। मा��"भन्दा पनि मार्क्सको अभिप्रेरणाले होला, आधुनिक चीनले स्वयंलाई भौतिक विकासको प्रणेताको रूपमा प्रस्तुत गर्न शुरु गरेको छ। ऊ अब साम्यवादको ' स ' सम्म पनि उच्चारण गर्न चाहँदैन।
भारत भने केही वर्षयता अन्योलमा फँसेको देखिँदै थियो। ' संसारको सबभन्दा ठूलो लोकतन्त्र ' भएको दाबीले छरछिमेकमा पाकिस्तान र बङ्गलादेश, पश्चिम एशियाका सबैजसो निरङ्कुश राजतन्त्रहरू तथा अफ्रिका एवं ल्याटिन अमेरिकाका धेरै मुलुकहरूसँग नयाँदिल्लीको दूरीलाई अनावश्यक रूपमा बढाउँदै लगिरहेको थियो। आर्थिक वृद्धिलाई एक मात्र लक्ष्य बनाएको भारतीय संस्थापन अलमलमा रहेका बेला बिहारीमूलका तत्कालीन विदेश सचिवले एउटा नयाँ अवधारणा सुझ्ाएः पब्लिक डिप्लोमेसी अर्थात् लोक परराष्ट्र नीति। भारतीय विदेश मन्त्रालयको लोक परराष्ट्र नीति प्रभागले नै बहुचर्चित ' नेपाल��"भारत सम्बन्धः उदीयमान प्रवृत्ति ' बारे पटना परिचर्चा आयोजना गरेको थियो।
लोक परराष्ट्र नीति प्रभागको उपादेयतालाई कूटनीतिज्ञहरूभन्दा उद्यमी तथा व्यापारीहरूले राम्रोसँग बुझ्ेका हुन्छन्। त्यसैले राजकर्ममा ��"द्योगिक घरानाहरूको प्रभाव सँगसँगै भरातको कूटनीतिक अग्रसरता बढ्दै जाने लगभग निश्चित छ। नयाँदिल्लीमा आजकल नामै किटेर ऊर्जा मन्त्रीलाई ' अम्वानी मन्त्री ' , सञ्चार मन्त्रीलाई ' पुरी मन्त्री ' वा ' जैन मन्त्री ' एवं उद्योग मन्त्रीलाई ' टाटा मामिलाका मन्त्री ' भन्न थालिएको पाइन्छ। भारतीय तथा नेपाली राजनीतिका दोयम दर्जाका खेलाडीहरू मात्र सहभागी रहेको पटना परिचर्चामा जयराम रमेश जस्ता कुशल रणनीतिकारको नियमित उपस्थितिले दिएको सन्देश के हो भने छिमेकीहरूसँगको सम्बन्धमा समेत नयाँदिल्लीको नयाँ नारा हुनेछः रेसिप्रोसिटी अर्थात् पारस्परिकता। एक अर्थमा अपारस्परिकतामा आधारित ' गुजराल डक्टरेन ' अब समाप्त भएको घोषणा थियो पटनाको आयोजन। संयोग कस्तो भने साम, दाम, दण्ड र भेद कूटनीतिका प्रणेता आचार्य विष्णुगुप्तको लोकप्रिय नाममा आधारित उनैको कर्मभूमि पटनाको चाणक्य होटलमा सम्पन्न भएको थियो सम्पूर्ण कार्यक्रम। जयराम रमेशले लेख्ने अखबारी स्तम्भको शीर्षकको नाम हुने गर्दछ, ' कौटिल्य ' ।
पारस्परिकताको दलदल पटनाबाट नयाँदिल्ली पुगेपछि भारतीय राजधानीमा फैलिँदै गएको नेपाल विरोधी रापले झ्नै पोल्छ। चीनको अपेक्षाकृत समतामूलक आर्थिक वृद्धिको साटो भारतले अनियन्त्रित बजारवादलाई निशर्त अँगालेको छ। एक लाख भन्दा बढी ' युरो अरबपति ' र दुई करोडभन्दा बढी ' डलर करोडपति ' उत्पन्न गराएको पूँजीवादी भारत अब अमेरिकासँग आणविक सन्धि गर्न चाहन्छ। अफ्रिकामा प्राकृतिक स्रोतका लागि चीनसँग प्रतिस्पर्धामा उत्रिएको छ। र, पूर्वी एसियामा आफ्नो उपस्थिति बढाउन प्रयत्नशील छ। “सधैँ दुःख मात्रै दिइरहने नेपालको अर्घेल्याइँ अब कति सहने?” भन्ने प्रश्न नयाँ पुस्ताका प्रभावशाली सञ्चारकर्मीहरू समेतले सोध्न थालेका छन्। ' चीन ' शब्द कुनै नेपालीले उच्चारण गर्नासाथ एस.डी. मुनि जस्ता पाका प्राध्यापक समेत आगो हुन्छन्, “बढाऊँ चीनसँग सम्बन्ध, भारत किन चाहियो?” आफ्नै देशभित्रका दिनको दुई डलरभन्दा कम आय हुने ८० करोड भारतीयहरूको वेदनासँग असंवेदनशील बन्न पुगेको नयाँदिल्ली संस्थापनको नेपालका समस्याहरूलाई सहानुभूतिपूर्वक हेर्ने सम्भावना पारस्परिकताको कार्यनीतिभित्र पर्दैन भन्ने कुरा ठम्याउन गाह्रो छैन। लेनदेन नै भारतको नेपालनीतिको नयाँ आधार हो भने काठमाडौँमा बढ्दै गएको भारतीय सक्रियतालाई सावधानीपूर्वक बुझनुपर्ने हुन्छ।
हरेक राजनीतिक शक्तिको ' चामत्कारिक ' उदयका पछाडि कुनै न कुनै वैदेशिक शक्तिको सहयोग रहेको हुन्छ भन्ने मान्यतालाई स्वीकार गर्ने हो भने संविधानसभा निर्वाचनमा नेकपा (मा��"वादी) को ' विजय ' ले भारतीय संस्थापनलाई ' विस्मित ' तुल्याएको प्रतिक्रिया प्रायोजित झै लाग्छ। त्यसलाई पत्याउन गाह्रो हुन्छ। भारतीय विदेश नीतिका घोर अनुदारवादी पृष्ठपोषक ब्रह्म चेलानीको सल्लाह (“भारतले नेपालसँगको खुला सिमाना तत्काल बन्द गर्नुपर्दछ” र बाबुराम भट्टराईको अभिव्यक्ति “खुला सिमाना समस्या हो”) मिल्न पुग्नु संयोग मात्र पनि हुनसक्छ। तर नेपाल��"भारत सिमाना खुला राख्ने ��"चित्यको खोजी भारतमा गम्भीरताका साथ शुरु भएको छ। नयाँ पुस्ताका अनुसन्धाताहरू हाकाहाकी भन्छन्, “हाम्रै शरीरबाट छुट्टिएको बङ्गलादेश वा पाकिस्तानभन्दा भिन्न व्यवहार नेपालसँग गर्नुपर्ने किन?” गोर्खालीहरूको वीरताका गाथाले अत्यन्त आत्मकेन्द्रित भूराजनीतिक विश्लेषकहरूलाई पटक्कै छुँदैन। तिनको तर्क हुने गर्दछः “भविष्यका युद्धहरू सिपाहीको शौर्य र वीरताभन्दा पनि प्रविधिको प्रभाव र प्राविधिकहरूको बुद्धिमत्ताले लडिने छन्। बेलायतले समेत गोर्खा भर्ती घटाउँदै लगेको बेला भारतले नेपालस्थित भर्ती केन्द्र बन्द गरे आकाश खस्दैन।” मा��"वादीहरूको माग र भारतीयहरूको प्रतिक्रिया बीचको समानताको यो दोस्रो संयोग हो।
सबैजसो भारतीय ऊर्जा उद्यमीहरूको अग्रसरता र सक्रियतामा सञ्चालन हुने अपेक्षा गरिएका जलविद्युत् आयोजनाहरूबाट उत्साहित भएर हिसिला यमिले पटनामा घोषणा गरिन्, “नेपालले एकदशकभित्र दशहजार मेगावाट जलविद्युत् उत्पादन गर्नेछ।” कौटिल्यको कुटिलतापूर्ण प्रतिक्रिया थियोः “त्यसले नेपालको भारतसँगको व्यापार घाटालाई पक्कै घटाउँछ।” त्यस्तो छद्म निस्पृहता अकारण होइन। दशहजार मेगावाट बिजुली उत्पादन गर्न सम्भवतः सञ्चय बाँधहरू बनाइने छन्। उत्तर भारतको ऊर्जा सुरक्षाका लागि दशहजार मेगावाट केही पनि होइन; त्यसले एउटा ��"द्योगिक शहरको मागलाई पनि धान्न सक्दैन। तर त्यस्ता बाँधहरूले नियमित तुल्याएको जलप्रवाहले खाद्य र पिउने पानीको सुरक्षाको मामिलामा बिहार र उत्तर प्रदेशलाई उल्लेख्य रूपमा सघाउँछ। मा��"वादी र भारतको नीति बीचको तेस्रो समानता अर्को कौतुहलपूर्ण संयोग बन्न गएको छ।
चौथो संयोग झ्नै चाखलाग्दो छ। पुष्पकमल दाहाल नेपाल र भारतबीचको सन् १९५० को शान्ति तथा मैत्री सन्धिलाई संशोधन गरेर द्विपक्षीय सम्बन्धलाई ' नयाँ उचाइ ' मा पुर्‍याउन इच्छुक छन्। उक्त सन्धिमा संशोधनको प्रावधान नभएकाले भारतका विदेशसचिव शिवशङ्कर मेनन् मा��"वादी2स्सँग मिलेर ' त्यस दिशातर्फ काम गर्न ' उत्सुक छन्। कूटनीतिका आडम्बर हटाएर सामान्य भाषामा भन्ने हो भने द्विपक्षीय सम्बन्ध अब नयाँ सन्धितर्फ उन्मुख छ। गत वर्ष फेब्रुअरीमा भएको भुटान��"भारत मैत्री सन्धिले द्विपक्षीय सम्बन्धलाई ' नयाँ उचाइ ' मा पुर्‍याएको कुरा नयाँदिल्लीका परराष्ट्र विश्लेषकहरू गौरवका साथ सुनाउँछन्। कूटनीतिक मान्यता अनुसार धेरै संयोगहरू एकसाथ देखिन थाले भने सतर्क भइहाल्नुपर्दछ। नेपाल र भारतबीच पारस्परिकतामा आधारित ' व्यापार जस्तो ' द्विपक्षीय सम्बन्ध सञ्चालन गर्न शीतलनिवासको हातमा के��"कस्ता पत्ता छन् र ' साउथ ब्लक ' ले कतिसम्म गर्न सक्छ भन्ने सन् १९८९ को अनुभवलाई सम्झ्िने हो भने महामहिम राकेश सूदको सक्रियताबाट उत्साहित हुनुपर्ने कुनै कारण छैन।
हलचलको जोखिम दलदलमा फँसेपछि बाह्य डोरीको सहारा नभेट्टाएसम्म जति हातखुट्टा चलायो उति नै डुब्दै जाने सामान्यज्ञान नभएकाहरू भारत र चीनबीचको ' समदूरी ' लाई ' सम��"सामीप्य ' मा रुपान्तरण गर्ने डिङ्ग हाँक्छन्। भूराजनीतिक यथार्थ के हो भने नेपालमा चीनप्रति जति व्यापक सद्भाव छ, त्यो बढाउने ठाउँ छैन। तर, घट्न सक्ने डर भने छ। त्यस्तो जोखिमलाई बुझ्ेर होला, चिनियाँहरू नेपाल��"भारत सम्बन्धको दलदलमा आफ्नो डोरी फाल्न हत्तपत्त रुचाउँदैनन्। पाकिस्तानको सामरिक पतनपछि भारतलाई रिझ्ाउन बाध्य बनेको अमेरिका अप्ठ्यारो परेका बेला नेपाललाई सहानुभूतिसम्म देखाउन सक्ला, सहयोग भने गर्न सक्दैन। नेपाल��"भारत सम्बन्धको मामिलामा ' सम��"सामीप्य ' वा ' पञ्चशील ' जस्ता उच्च आदर्शहरू हावादारी कुरा हुन्। मा��"वादीले भारतीय संस्थापनलाई जे��"जस्ता वाचा��"कवोल गरेका भए तापनि; वा भारतले जे��"जस्तो आश्वासन बाँडेको भए तापनि, नेपाल��"भारत सम्बन्धलाई पारस्परिकताका आधारमा सञ्चालन गर्न खोज्ने हो भने नेपालमा भारत विरोधी भावना झ्नै गहिरो बन्न पुग्ने निश्चित छ। त्यस्तो परिस्थितिमा भारतीय सहयोग र सद्भावले गर्दा हालको अवस्थामा आइपुगेका मा��"वादीहरूको भविष्य पनि सङ्कटमा पर्न सक्छ।
नेपालीहरूको बाध्यतालाई भारतका कूटनीतिक रणनीतिकारहरूले नबुझेका भने होइनन्। मा��"वादीलाई रिझाउन खोज्दा बाँकी जति जम्मै राजनीतिक दलहरू चिढिएको कुरा पटना परिचर्चामा समेत अनुभव गर्न सकिन्थ्यो। बिहारलाई ' दोस्रो घर ' मान्ने प्रदीप गिरी बाहेक नेपाली काङ्ग्रेसको कुनैपनि प्रभावशाली नेता पटना गएनन्। एमालेका राजन भट्टराई, मधेशी जनअधिकार फोरमका सुतिहार, तमलोपाका महेन्द्र राय तथा सद्भावना पार्टीका अनिल कुमार झ्ाजस्ता प्रतिभावान युवाहरूको सहभागितालाई कम आकलन गर्न मिल्दैन। तर, तिनको उपस्थितिले आयोजनाका सीमितताहरू उजागर भएको तर्क गर्न सकिने आधार भने तयार हुन्छ।
चीन र अमेरिकासँग सान्निध्य कायम गर्ने गम्भीर प्रयासले गर्दा ज्ञानेन्द्रसँग भारतीय संस्थापन बिच्किएजस्तै बेनजिर भुट्टोमार्फत चीन र पाकिस्तान, आफ्ना व्यापारी नातेदारहरूको माध्यमबाट बङ्गलादेश एवं केही गैरआवासीय नेपालीहरूको अग्रसरतामा जापानसँग सम्बन्ध गहिरो पार्दै युरोप तथा अमेरिकासँगको मित्रतालाई निरन्तरता दिने प्रयत्न गर्दा भारतीय संस्थापनको नजरमा गिरिजाप्रसाद कोइराला ' समस्या ' हुन पुगेका हुन्। संविधानसभाको निर्वाचनपछि ' कोइरालाजी कमण्डलु लिएर काशी गए हुन्छ ' भन्ने कुरा भारतीय संस्थापनका जिम्मेवार अधिकारीहरू समेत अनौपचारिक कुराकानीमा हाकाहाकी भन्थे। एमालेलाई भारतले नेपालका साम्प्रदायिक तथा अनुदारवादीहरूको राजनीतिक मञ्च भन्दा बढ्ता कहिल्यै मह140व दिएन। तर काङ्ग्रेसलाई ' साइजमा ल्याउने ' भारतीय अभीष्ट पूरा भए पनि एमाले तथा मा��"वादीबीचको राजनीतिक सहकार्य सोचिएजति सजिलो छैन। आफैँले सिर्जना गरेको दलदलबाट भारतीय संस्थापनले मा��"वादीलाई सजिलै उद्दार गर्न सक्ने छैन। ज्ञानेन्द्र र गिरिजालाई सँगसँगै गलहत्याइने आक्रोश मा��"वादीहरूको मुखबाट निस्किएको भए तापनि त्यो भाषा र शैली नितान्त भारतीय हो भन्ने कुरा बुझन गाह्रो छैन।
भारतको पारस्परिकताको धम्की, मा��"वादीहरूको जे पनि गर्न सकिने दम्भ र मध्यममार्गी दलहरूको केही पनि गर्न नमिल्ने लिँडेढिपीका बीच नेपालको भारतनीति अन्योलग्रस्त बन्न पुगेको छ। शान्ति प्रक्रिया अवरुद्ध छ, तर मा��"वादी अनमिनका इयान मार्टिनलाई फिर्ता पठाउन हतारो गरिरहेको छ। अत्यावश्यक वस्तुको भारतबाट नियमित आपूर्ति, नेपाली उत्पादनका लागि भारतीय बजारभित्र सहज प्रवेशको व्यवस्था, मधेश डुबानको प्राविधिक सम्बोधन तथा द्विपक्षीय सहयोगका अनगिन्ती मुद्दाहरूलाई थाती राखेर सन् १९५० को सन्धिलाई खारेज गर्ने दिशामा देखिएको तदारुकताले शङ्का उब्जाउँछः यो मा��"वादीको पारस्परिकता हो वा भारतसँग थप मोलभाउ गर्ने लेनदेनको बाठो दाउ? तर, नयाँदिल्लीमै मा��"वादीलाई हत्तपत्त पत्याउनुहुन्न भन्ने समूह पनि कमजोर छैन। एक पूर्व कूटनीतिज्ञ भन्छन्, “साह्रै चतुर छन्, तिनलाई विश्वास गरेर भारतले ठूलो गल्ती गरेको अनुभव भइरहेछ। तर के गर्ने, ज्ञानेन्द्रलाई उसको सही ठाउँ देखाउने अरू कुनै बाटो पनि थिएन।” यदि साँच्चै त्यसो हो भने सीताराम यचुरीले भने झै नयाँ संविधान र नयाँ निर्वाचन भन्दा पहिले भारतको पारस्परिकता प्रस्तावमा आधारित नयाँ शान्ति तथा मैत्री सन्धि सम्भव हुँदैन। यसबीच नेपाल��"भारत सम्बन्धबारे सबै राजनीतिक शक्तिहरूका बीच पञ्चायतकालको ' अन्ध भारत विरोधको सार्वजनिक नारा, तर नग्न नयाँदिल्ली भक्ति ' भन्दा भिन्न किसिमले विचार विमर्श हुन जरुरी छ। भारतले नरुचाएको २०१५ सालको संविधान १८ महिना टिकेन। दुईतिहाई बहुमत बेगर सन्धि सम्झ्ौता गर्न नसकिने प्रावधानले गर्दा २०४७ सालको संविधानमाथि टनकपुर सम्झौताबारे अदालतको निर्णय आएलगत्तै नियोजित आक्रमण शुरु भयो। पहाड��"मधेशका सबै राजनीतिक दलहरूको सहमति कायम भयो भने विदेशी षडयन्त्रले लोकतान्त्रिक नेपाललाई ठाडै चुनौती दिन सक्दैन। तर ' समदुरी ' वा ' सम��"सामीप्य ' भन्दा पनि वस्तुनिष्ठ एवं सामञ्जस्यपूर्ण नेपाल��"भारत सम्बन्ध मात्र दिगो रहन सक्छ। नेपालको भूराजनीतिक बाध्यतालाई संविधानसभामा सबभन्दा ठूलो दल भएका नाताले मा��"वादीले पनि आत्मसात गर्न जरुरी छ। आन्तरिक राजनीतिमा बाह्य सम्बन्धलाई हतियार बनाउन खोजियो भने सबै नेपालीको हार हुनसक्छ। दरबारलाई ठेगान लगाउन तुलनात्मक रूपमा सजिलो थियो। दिल्ली��"दरबारलाई ठाउँमा राख्न राष्ट्रिय सहमतिको कूटनीति बाहेक अरू कुनै रणनीतिले काम गर्न नसक्ने कुरा स्वतःसिद्ध छ। (Himal Khabar patrika)

Behind India-Nepal relations

By Lok Raj Baral
India-Nepal relations operate at various levels: personal, political, geo-strategic, economic, international, socio- psychological. So person-to-person and back-channel diplomacy become no less significant than other channels, though some of them get structured and continue to work as a framework for bilateral relations. The Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed by the outgoing Rana Prime Minister, Mohan Shamsher and Indian Ambassador CPN Singh in 1950, is an example of a framework which India still thinks valid for the mutual benefits of the peoples of both the countries.
So India's Nepal policy revolves around the Treaty despite the erosion of many of its elements during the course of implementation. But Nepal has no India policy as it neither subscribes to the letter and spirit of the Treaty nor can it propose its abrogation. Almost all Left parties wanted abrogation of the Treaty while out of power, but in power, they want to review it in order to contextualize the Indo-Nepal relations. In their view, it would also put an end to the legacy of old British policy which the rulers of independent India preferred to continue with slight modifications.
In fact, the 1950 Treaty was concluded as a response to the presence of communist China in Tibet. Any Nepali ruler could have done the same as the Rana did then, though the Rana rulers were under dire need of cultivating India for the survival of the beleaguered regime as well as to insulate Nepal from the threat of communism. Such a context changed soon after the signing of the Treaty with India itself developing a close relationship with China along with the recognition of Tibet as the Autonomous Region in 1954. Nepal too took initiative to establish formal diplomatic relation with China to which India didn't object.
Later, in the wake of strained relations developing between China and India in the early 1960s, Nepal came closer to China in order to avert any perceived or real threats emanating from the South. India didn't recognize King Birendra's peace zone proposal to declare Nepal a zone of peace maintaining that it was vague asking Nepal which country posed a threat to its security. In India's interpretation, it was indirect approach to undercutting the spirit of the 1950 Treaty maintaining that the Treaty had permanency in maintaining Indo-Nepal relations. However, the Nepali power elite have all along been evasive on the issue but at the same time curse the Treaty for all ills that Nepal suffers today. Such conclusions are often drawn without studying thoroughly the actual effects of the Treaty on Nepal's overall underdevelopment.
It seems that the emerging political dynamics of Nepal has, of late, introduced certain degree of maturity in elite behaviors in both the countries, recognizing the commonality of interest and mutual interdependence. And in the process, India's role in Nepal is being studied with greater objectivity and understanding. Old emotions are being died down; adjustment of policies is underway; forces branded as anti-Indian are turning into friends, who are intent on coping with changes. The Maoist metamorphosis is the latest example for putting a positive impact on the emerging pattern of relationship.
India's role in facilitating the peace process by encouraging the Maoists to transform their role into multiparty mainstream politics and its positive response to the Maoist emergence as a powerful force in Nepali politics suggests that India does not dictate its terms on making political equation. Its preference to retain constitutional monarchy changed soon following the turn of events during the course of the movement in 2006 and later after the emergence of the Maoist party as the principal player in Nepali politics. Even the so-called monarchist lobbies in India seem to reconcile to the qualitative change that is underway in Nepal.
Perhaps the spectacular electoral gains of the Maoists and the latter's commitment to pluralist democracy might have prompted them to accept the new political realities. The transformation of the Maoists into competitive system and their bonhomie with India is a positive development for India. It has helped to falsify the claim that the Maoists in Nepal and the Indian Naxalites were working in tandem by creating a corridor from Nepal to Andhra Pradesh in India. So any Maoist transformation from insurgency to peaceful democratic path is salutary development in South Asia.
It is also a triumph of democracy regardless of the declining influence of the so-called democratic parties. If the present churning trends of politics is not properly understood and adjustments made accordingly by the parties, they would also be overtaken by the new forces. And India, despite its ambivalent attitude on the unfolding events and trends (during the movement in particular), has eventually coped with the new changes in Nepal.
How Indian changed position on the two pillar policy (constitutional monarchy and multiparty system) has had been able to create conducive environment for taking Indo-Nepal relations to a new height has been stated by the Maoist leader Prachanda himself during the course of an interview granted to a senior Indian journalist recently. He says: "Fortunately, the 19-day andolan led the GOI [Government of India] to clarify it would respect the people's verdict, even if this was for a republic. That was historically a very big change in Delhi's policy. And the 12-point understanding represented an equally big change in the Maoists position and attitude".
The emergence of the new national and regional parties in Nepal has also added a new dimension to Indo-Nepal relations. On the one hand, India needs to be cautious of not offending its constituencies that range from national parties to the regional groupings of the Tarai, while on the other, its delicate balance is also essential for not jeopardizing Nepal's national unity and territorial integrity for its own security. Its vital national interests can be protected only by discouraging fragmentary trends in Nepal. To the credit of Madhesi leaders of Nepal, Nepal's independence and sovereignty has been ensured. It is also up to the non-Madhesi political actors to address the genuine demands of the Madhesi people so that the great enterprise of nation-state building could be undertaken without any hindrance.
Indo-Nepal relation has certain characteristics to be endurable despite tumultuous changes that take place internally and externally. Many think that the 1950 Treaty is the main villain for straining India-Nepal and hence its abrogation is essential. Symbolically and even theoretically, such mutual security and economic arrangements are negation of many classical definitions of independent nation state but realistically, no states exist without interdependence.
Taking India-Nepal relations in their entirety, it can be said that even if treaties are abrogated or new treaties concluded, the basic spirit of India-Nepal relations remain the same. If the 1950 Treaty would have been replaced or abrogated as Bangladesh did after twenty years, much noise made against its continuation would have already been silenced. What Nepalis need more is internal cohesion, development, peace and democratic stability.(Kantipuronline)

Pragmatism: India-Iran,US-Nepal’s Maoists

ENTHUSIASMS & FOREBODINGS By Rene Q. Bas

THE Times of India’s report had the headline: “US warms up to Nepal Maoists.”
Most neutral observers expected the stunning victory less than a month ago of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists)—which must be distinguished from the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist). CPN (M) got the most seats in the constituent assembly elections of the world’s only remaining Hindu kingdom. The Maoist party’s Chairman Prachanda (whose real name is Pushpa Kamal Dahal) will soon form a government in coalition with other leftist parties and some centrist parties.
More astonishing to leftists (than to centrists and rightwingers) is the news announced on Friday that on May Day (a very important symbol of the Left) the American Ambassador to Nepal, Nancy Powell, met with Chairman Prachanda at his residence.
“US Ambassador Nancy Powell met on Thursday with CPN (M) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal to discuss the outcome of the April 10 elections, CPN [M] plans for the Constituent Assembly, and the future of US-Nepal relations,” the US Embassy statement released on Friday said. “This was their first meeting. The meeting occurred in advance of Powell’s return to the United States for consultations on US-Nepal relations.”
As Times of India reports it, “Powell provided an overview of current US government assistance to Nepal and sought Prachanda’s assurances that the new government led by his party would respect current donor agreements and ensure the safety of those implementing them.”
She also urged the Maoist leader to make sure that “all Maoist organizations illustrate their commitment to the political process through their words and actions.”
TOI quoted Prachanda as saying that the meeting was “extremely positive” and that his party would remain committed to multi-party democracy.
The US State Department still has the Nepal Maoists on its watchlist of terrorist organizations even if the CPN (M) is now an important member of the outgoing ruling coalition. But in April, once it became certain that CPN (Maoists) would lead the incoming government, Washington announced that it was going to continue supporting Nepal.
This is a big change in US policy. The US normally freezes all assistance to governments that include any individual leader or political party identified as a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism.
Powell and Prachanda had encountered each other at a meeting hosted by the UN. Times of India asked Prachanda “if she warded him off as a terrorist” and “a smiling Prachanda” replied, “She neither said anything negative nor asked any question. She just listened. We hope she would ask her government to create a conducive environment and lift the terrorist tag on us.”
Former US President Jimmy Carter who, with his wife, is known to be old friends of India (which has been the protector of the Nepalese monarchy), gave the Nepal Maoists his endorsement. Times of India said Carter had described the Maoists as “more the victims of violence during the election than the aggressor.”
Carter criticized the Bush administration for cutting off “all channels of communication with the Maoists, even after they had laid down arms and joined the peace process.” He “advised Washington to do business with the former rebels.”
I wonder if Ka Satur is hoping for a development like this here?
Business with Tehran
Pragmatism is also the policy in New Delhi, though it caused some friction with the US last month. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahma­dinejad visited the Indian capital last week (April 29). Earlier in April, President Bush asked New Delhi to urge Ahmadinejad to comply with what the UN requires of Iran in it’s nuclear program. India’s foreign office, said the Press Trust of India, replied to the White House saying it needed no guidance on the way it conducted its bilateral relations.
The publicized Indian reply to President Bush would appear to be unpragmatic, considering that the USA and India have a nuclear cooperation agreement and India wishes to continue to sell its products and professional services to Americans.
But it was deviously pragmatic to let Iran hear that New Delhi is not America’s errand boy. For if India is to keep its economy growing the way it has in the past decade, it must triple its energy supply, at least.
Iran’s strategic importance, its own quest for energy stability and security makes it necessary for New Delhi to continue being its friend and partner.
The energy cooperation India wants with Iran includes laying down a $7-billion pipeline through Pakistan. India’s need for more and more energy as it progresses to First World status, just like China, drives it to have deals and close connections with odious contacts.
Indians, just like the Chinese, are big investors—$2.5 billion—in the land of the genocidal Sudanese. India is competing with China over Burma’s oil and natural gas.
The Indian military buys a lot of arms from the United States. India has a lot of American BPO clients.
I’m sure American Harvard Business School types love India’s pragmatism.(Manila Times)

New Reports of U.S. Conspiracy against Nepal’s Maoists

By Siddharth Varadarajan The Hindu
There is an emerging conspiracy to prevent the Nepali Maoists to exercise national power — in the wake of their overwhelming victory on April 10. The Hindu in the article posted here that American ambassador Nancy Powell is “actively pushing” the idea that the discredited reactionary Girija Prasad Koirala should remain Prime Minister. A section of Nepali Congress says Maoists must first oust Koirala to stake claim to the top post. Amendment to interim constitution to allow PM to be removed by simple majority proposed.
the outlines of a possible crisis and decisive test of power are emerging. And these counterrevolutionary actions of the U.S. demand active exposure and opposition.
After first “congratulating the people of Nepal on their historic Constitutional Assembly election,” the United States is now seeking to subvert the electorate’s mandate by lobbying against the Maoists heading the next coalition government. According to political and diplomatic sources, the U.S. ambassador in Kathmandu, Nancy Powell, is “actively pushing” the idea that Girija Prasad Koirala should continue as Prime Minister. Under the interim constitution, all major decisions, including the appointment or removal of the Prime Minister, must be taken by consensus, failing which by a two-thirds majority. With the encouragement of the Americans, a section of the Nepali Congress (NC) leadership is now citing this provision to argue that the Maoists will first have to oust Mr. Koirala before they can stake a claim to the top post.
“Suicidal for party”
The American suggestion which one NC leader in an interview to The Hindu described as “suicidal for the party” runs counter to the belief of Indian and other diplomats here that a Maoist-led government is inevitable given the scale of their victory.
The CA consists of 601 seats, 575 of which are elected. Of these, the Maoists have 220, or 38.2 per cent, the NC only 110 and the Unified Marxist-Leninists (UML) 103. The four Madhesi parties have 85 seats between them. A further 26 seats will be filled by nomination on a pro rata basis.
In the current coalition based on the “interim legislature,” the NC, with 40 per cent of the seats, has not just the prime ministership but also the defence, home and finance portfolios. In line with this practice, Prachanda, chairman of the CPN Maoist, says his party will now head the coalition government and keep the three top ministries to itself.
Pressuring the Maoists
Though some observers feel the “GPK as PM” line is meant to pressure the Maoists into yielding at least one top portfolio to the NC or UML in an eventual coalition government, there is a fear that the proposal will take on a life of its own as other players who feel threatened by the Maoists such as the Palace and Army brass — latch on to it.
Last week, the entire debate within the NC was over whether the party should join the coalition led by the Maoists or not. But when the Central Working Committee of the NC met on Thursday (24 April) to take stock of the party’s defeat, senior leaders openly challenged the Maoists’ right to lead the government.
Second ‘proposal’
A second ‘proposal’ that is being floated to prevent the Maoists from forming a stable government is an amendment to the interim constitution to allow the Prime Minister to be removed by simple majority.
Since the Maoists will have more than one-third of the seats in the CA, the argument goes, there will be no check should they refuse to hold elections again. The Maoist leadership rejects these arguments.
“When the interim constitution itself spells out the lifespan of the CA and mandates fresh elections within a maximum period of two years and six months, where is the question of the Maoists delaying elections?” Mr. Prachanda told The Hindu. “Would any of these proposals or formulas have been made if the NC or UML had been in our position?” he asked. “That is the true test of how valid these proposals are.”
The Maoists fear the new emphasis on the “politics of numbers” will vitiate the consensual spirit that the CA needs to write Nepal’s new constitution.
Mr. Prachanda says the electorate’s mandate is for a coalition government led by the Maoists. “This is a time when all the parties have to work together the Maoists, the NC, UML, the [Madhesi Janadhikar] Forum and others.”
Role for Koirala
Asked what role he envisaged for Mr. Koirala, Mr. Prachanda said the “guardianship” of the NC leader had been crucial in pushing the peace process and ensuring that elections to the CA were held properly. “At the same time, he has repeatedly said he wants to retire from active politics and this must also be respected. And yet, we feel some way must be found for him to continue to play the role of a guardian. My view is that given his age and his own sentiments, the proper way to honour him would not be to insist on his involvement in the government or day-to-day politics. We have to find another way of honouring him. But if he wants, we are open-minded on this,” said Mr. Prachanda. “I told him we are prepared to talk about this.”

India worries over Nepal's future

By Sanjoy Majumder
The strong showing by Nepal's Maoists in the parliamentary elections has taken its influential neighbour India by surprise.
Diplomats at its sprawling embassy in Kathmandu, its largest mission anywhere, privately concede that it is a result that they hardly expected and least favoured.
With a strong possibility of the Maoists forming the next government, many in Delhi are wondering where it leaves relations between the two countries.
While India has nurtured some ties with the former rebels, there is growing concern over the Maoists' links with China, and also with India's own troubling Maoist insurgency.
Reports in the Indian and Nepalese media have quoted Maoist leader Prachanda talking about taking a more "balanced" approach in his country’s dealings with its neighbours.
Saying that he will develop "new relations" with India, he is reported to have said that Nepal will maintain an equal distance between Delhi and Beijing.
It is a comment that has already sent policy-makers in Delhi into a tailspin.
Special relationship
Many here are concerned that the Maoists will use their new-found electoral clout as leverage over India.
"It means that the special relationship between India and Nepal which dates back to British days and 1950 is in its terminal phase," says KV Rajan, a former Indian ambassador to Nepal.
A Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which both countries signed in 1950, defined their political and economic relationship.

Some fear Nepal's Maoists could encourage Maoist rebels in India
Under the Treaty, people living in both countries could freely travel across the border for employment, and could reside in either place.
It also granted preferential trade arrangements and, until 1969, allowed India to maintain security posts in Nepal's northern border with China, as well as a military mission in Kathmandu.
India's basic concern, say diplomats, was always China.
Delhi, which had already fought a bitter border war with Beijing in 1962 which it lost comprehensively, was paranoid about China establishing a major presence in Kathmandu.
Influence
"The 1950 treaty was basically meant to help address India's security needs," says Ambassador Rajan.
"In return, Nepal got economic benefits, such as the right to live and work in India. That was the basic arrangement."
But increasingly, many Nepalese were uncomfortable with the Treaty, believing it gave India major political and economic influence.
The Maoists have regularly raised the issue and said they want the Treaty scrapped.
They also want a review of other agreements, especially those relating to river water and irrigation – issues which are very sensitive on both sides of the border.
And there is the question of links between the Maoists in Nepal and those in India.
Security threat
India's bloody Maoist insurgency runs across a broad swathe of its territory from its northern border with Nepal down to its central tribal belt and the southern state of Andhra Pradesh.
It was recently identified by the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, as the country's single biggest security threat.
Security experts believe that the Maoist victory in Nepal will come as a big morale booster to Maoist rebels fighting in India.
India's problems also stem from the fact that they have traditionally backed the mainstream political parties, particularly the Nepali Congress of the outgoing Prime Minister, Girija Prasad Koirala.
They have always backed a role for the monarchy, too, albeit one that has changed somewhat over the past two years following the pro-democracy protests of 2006.
Ironically, many of the senior Maoist leaders have studied in India and would often hide in the country at the height of the insurgency.
Next government
They also have relatively close ties with India’s own mainstream Communist parties, who support the governing coalition in Delhi.
But their influence is limited, particularly after the Maoists' current political position following the election.
"We will have to accept that India will have to deal differently with the next government, and accept that Prachanda represents the sensitivities and aspirations of the majority of Nepalese," says one foreign office mandarin who wished to remain unnamed.
But there are some who believe it is time for relations between both countries to change, and reflect the new realities, rather than be mired in history.
"Our relation was one between a sovereign country and a semi-protectorate. It now needs to be one of equals," says Ambassador Rajan.
Ultimately, some believe, India’s importance to Nepal outweighs its political imperatives.
Both countries have strong cultural, economic and ethnic ties, and India is Nepal's largest neighbour. And many here think that no government can ignore that. (BBC)

India must speak out

By: Tarun Vijay
Ian Martin is a favourite cultural czar of the strong western Christian lobby who considered it prudent to station him during the tumultuous period when a new Christian dominated country like East Timor was being carved out of Indonesia. He was secretary general of Amnesty International and has also served in Bosnia-Hercegovina. His best known book is Self-determination in East Timor. As was in vogue during the liberation theology days in Maharashtra's Talasari area where Marxists and the Jesuits carried out a joint programme authored by the World Council of Churches, Martin is dividing Nepal into smaller identities. He is also working with the Maoists to ensure they stay in power and their aides are fully integrated into Nepal's Army, Armed Police Force and the Nepal Police. There is great resentment against this move among the loyal Nepalese forces which are disciplined and well-groomed and have recruited members after rigorous tests, interviews and verification of antecedents. On the contrary, the new entrants to these forces – the Maoists – are simple rogues who were inducted into the Maoist PLA either through compulsion or by selling them false dreams. Their induction into the regular Nepalese army will not only seriously affect the morale of the patriotic forces but give an immense boost to the terror outfit of Maoists to retain their hold on the governance and administration through newly-inducted Maoist soldiers in the state force. Martin has been issuing statements and giving interviews each day like an extra-constitutional head or the correctionist interceptor. And instead of limiting himself to the monitoring of elections, he is becoming a self-appointed initiator of 'security reforms' and 'inclusion of marginalised sections'. The Maoists have compromised with the pride and self-esteem of the nation by demanding in their 23-point Comprehensive Peace Agreement that elections be held under UN supervision. This implies that the Nepalese people are not capable of holding elections to their own constituent assembly. The UN Security Council established the United Nation's Mission In Nepal (UNMIN) under Resolution 1740 (2007) for one year with a clear mandate to monitor the Maoist ceasefire and assist elections to the Constituent Assembly. But under Martin, UNMIN has made people wonder about its real motives. Martin began direct talks with the rebel Madhesi groups, gave special interviews and issued press statements about including “marginalized” groups like Dalits and Janajatis (tribals) even as UNMIN staff shut their eyes to the vandalism of the Maoist youth wing – the Young Communist League. Even before the process of verifying Maoist “soldiers” could be completed, Martin said he would ensure that all Maoists were confined to their respective cantonments. He also said those who killed Maoist workers in Terai would be punished though he had nothing to say about the murder and mayhem the Maoists indulged in. Martin has been accused of advocating press censorship in Nepal, prompting a journalist to ask him why UNMIN is raising the issue of press “ethics” and appealing to “exercise press freedom in accordance with professionalism”. He was defensive rather evasive in his answer. He said in his briefing to the Security Council that ''... most important for the completion of UNMIN's arms monitoring mandate (is) that there is progress towards decisions about the future of those Maoist combatants whose status is verified within the framework of decisions about the future of Nepal's security sector”. Martin admits in the next paragraph that “views and expectations about the future of the security sector differ greatly and it would be unrealistic to expect quick and easy decisions”. Working on this “line of thought”, he builds up a case for extending his tenure and said at a press conference on November 6 last year that UNMIN was expected to assist on issues regarding Nepal’s security, including a managed transition of the Maoist army from temporary cantonments and restriction of the Nepal army inside barracks. He not only equates the regular Nepal army with the rogue band of the Maoists but emphasises a greater role for himself through providing “assistance” in the security sector and “greater advisory support for promoting public security”. Back in July 2007, Martin had said “only Nepalese actors can rise to these challenges”, but in January this year, he began lobbying for an extension by praising the political groups – ostensibly the Maoists – who have been violating every single UN guideline for transparent conduct of the elections. In fact Maoists have left no one in doubt by issuing at least two public statements implying that the UNMIN is working at their behest. Baburam Bhattarai, second-in-command at the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), has also issued a veiled threat to send UNMIN packing if it “doesn't behave”. Under these circumstances the security scene in Nepal remains uncertain. Nepal turned red and the peoples' verdict should be respected. Who else knows it better than the Indians who have learnt to accept such major turnarounds with an unmatched grace and an élan that is rare in this part of the world. So Nepal's new rulers have nothing to fear from Delhi. But do we have the same confidence in Kathmandu's new rulers?

The driving philosophy of the Maoists in Nepal was born in deep hate and intolerance. They hated those who were not on their side and physically eliminated their opponents. So far the tally says 15,000 were killed by the so-called Peoples' Liberation Army formed on the pattern of China's PLA by the Maoists. They are such dedicated followers of the dreadful legacy of Mao Tse Tung that they are ashamed to have any relation with their own motherland's culture, religion and civilisational traditions and would rather call themselves proud inheritors of an alien legacy which is being revisited by the younger generation in China. Mao’s biographies have been either deleted or shortened in Chinese text books and the entire Cultural Revolution period has finally been recognized as a gross mistake. But in this part of the underdeveloped, illiterate or semi-literate, corruption-laden land of weak and spineless politicians, Marx, Mao and Stalin are still gods of a leftist extremism, a fossilised cult of the bygone era. Like old moth-eaten files suddenly being dusted in a sleepy Naxalbari, communally hardcore, Maoist targets continue to be Hindus, Sanskrit schools and Nepalese Brahmins. None of the non-Hindus have been found to be anti-revolutionary. Clearly Capitol Hill and the House of the Saudis work better for their flock than the gestures of large-hearted, pot-bellied Delhi. Since India has remained mired in the same secular talibanism of the Left and the left-out variety and there are hardly any credible protests from nationalists against such gross human rights violations, the barbarism of Maoists continued for 10 years. The leader of the gang, Prachanda, became a hero for Delhi's glitterati, invited to address special media events as a red revolutionary. Now he is the new monarch in Kathmandu with special absolute powers. As was announced by his party, Nepal may soon have a presidential form of government. India was prepared to face this eventuality, which is a culmination of collective sins on part of all the parties who say they care for Indian interests. The last 10 years were the most crucial for India-Nepal relations as well as Nepal's domestic politics. India either bullied Nepal or simply ignored its plight. The Nepal watchers and big mouth friends were more interested in writing long reports and giving speeches in their backyard than forming any effective strategy to bail Nepal out from its crisis. Indian Marxists helped their ideological comrades quite openly and since the UPA government came to power with CPM help, their actions made it clear that they will be happy to see Maoists ruling Kathmandu. It just happened. Now South Block thinks it is prudent to engage Maoists and have them included in the mainline political flow rather than keep them at bay and invite further animosity. Prachanda will soon be officially invited to India and our new envoy-designate Rakesh Sood, fresh from his Afghanistan stint, shall be able to manage equations with the new palace owners who don't find any dichotomy in raising slogans about a proletariat revolution with a Rolex shining on their wrist. What are the threats that loom large on our radar if Prachanda chooses to show that he means Maoist business? Communists have never shown that power makes them sober and appreciative of a different view point. From Kannur to Singur and the blood-stained 'red corridor', the story is that power whets their appetite to be more lethal and spiteful. Nepal should not become a hotbed of superpower rivalry. This time China has gained clearly and with Tibet already in its control, it has reached the borders of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Besides, Martin would be helping the “harvesting agencies” of the proselytisers. India can't afford to be a mute spectator to the growing threats in her immediate neighbourhood. Martin should be sent back immediately and Maoists need to be engaged and monitored closely. So far Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee has acted well though belatedly. If one goes by his patriotic speeches in the Asia Society, we may have reasons to trust his diplomacy. (TOI)