Round The World
New Delhi, 10
October 2012
Nepal: In Perpetual Transition
CHINESE
INTERESTS WORRISOME
By Obja Borah
Hazarika
Research
Scholar, School of International Studies (JNU)
Nepal’s
domestic political situation is a never-ending transitional stage. Since 2008, Parties
have engaged in unproductive arguments about ways to resolve the issue of drafting
the Constitution. Wherein, intermittent steps and incremental advances in the
positive direction have only been met with collapses and relapses of cooperative
efforts by the stakeholders. Thus, despite several extensions, the Constituent Assembly
(CA) whose term expired on 27 May was unable to draft and pass a Constitution.
Importantly,
though most of the Statute’s drafting was complete, irreconcilable differences
among Parties on several issues over the Constitution persisted. In fact, four
important Parties, Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), Nepali Congress (NC),
Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist), and United Democratic Madhesi
Front (UDMF), agreed to hold fresh elections to
create a new CA to resolve contentious constitutional issues last month.
However,
fresh disagreements over the proposed CA’s leadership broke out between the Parties.
The NC Party maintains that they should lead the new Government as both the UCPN
(M) and CPN-UML have already led the Government twice after the 2008 CA elections. While Unified CPN-Maoist
Politburo Member Haribol Gajurel said Pushpa Kamal Dahal would lead the CA.
There is speculation that a non-partisan
figure, a former Chief Justice or civil society leader, might lead the election
Government. Predictably, the jostling over the proposed CA’s leadership has led
to another political impasse.
Adding
to the political chaos is China’s
involvement in Nepal’s
domestic politics. Beijing’s interest in Nepal had
hitherto been mostly limited to economic matters. But, now China has increased its engagement with Nepal and made clear its views on the direction
of Kathmandu’s political transition that it
preferred.
Significantly,
China has sought to
influence the issue of federalism in Nepal. The previous CA could not
decide whether a unitary or a federal form of Government would best suit the Himalayan
kingdom. Visiting Chinese leaders have communicated to Kathmandu
its preference for a unitary form of Government. Also, Beijing has articulated that if federalism is
to be adopted it should not be based on ethnicity.
Beijing’s
insistence on a unitary form of Government could be due to apprehensions of
having to deal with multiple centres of power some of which could be
sympathetic to Tibet’s cause
and in turn become footholds for fuelling greater dissidence to its restive Tibet region.
China’s fears could have
also risen due to speculation of foreign hands having greater leverage in case
multiple power centres emerge in Nepal. A federal political structure
could render the Madhesis powerful in some provinces which Beijing
may have calculated as amounting to greater Indian influence in Nepal due to the perceived New Delhi connection to Madhesis.
Undeniably, India has so far refrained from meddling in Nepal’s
unfolding political process. However, greater Chinese interest in Nepal will not go unnoticed by New Delhi. With Beijing
extending its aid and development in the Himalayan kingdom and its newfound
penchant to direct it on the type of Government it should choose, New Delhi will have to
formulate its response in a commensurate manner.
Besides, India should not allow China’s leverage to grow in Nepal; not
least of all to prevent the next Government there to be nothing but a Chinese design.
New Delhi is also worried about growing
anti-India sentiment in Nepal.
In the latest round of
India-bashing, the Nepal Communist Party Maoist
(CPN-Maoist) head Mohan Vaidya Kiran, which split from the ruling
Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in June, accused India of interfering in Nepal politics, and demanded scraping all
treaties signed with India, including the 1950 Nepal-India Peace and Friendship
Treaty. The Party also launched a movement against the plying of vehicles
bearing Indian registration numbers, screening of Hindi movies and broadcast of
Hindi songs in Nepal
last month.
These may be efforts by
the Party to play the nationalism card to boost its ratings at a time when the
country is witnessing a Constitutional crisis. Additionally, fears of cultural usurpation
or Chinese pressure could have driven it to announce this ban.
Pertinently, the ban on
films and songs evoked reactions from the Madhesis based Parties of the Hindi
speaking Terai region. In retaliation, traders blocked the entry of vehicles
from Nepal to India at
Sunauli area on the Indo-Nepal border in UP’s Maharajganj district’s Nautanwa tehsil last fortnight.
Further, External Affairs Minister SM Krishna raised the ban issue called
by the CPN-Maoist with Nepal's
Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Narayan Kaji Shrestha during a
meeting in New York
on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session last month. Krishna reminded
Shrestha of the existence of a time-bound understanding between Nepal and India that territories of either
side would not be used against the other for propaganda purposes. Shrestha
reassured Krishna that such activities were not
permissible and would be curtailed.
Nonetheless, India
and Nepal
have much friction in their relations. Yet both nations also have a history of
cooperation in many areas. Only last week, Indian
Ambassador to Nepal Jayant Prasad offered Kathmandu help in mitigating its energy crisis by cooperating in the field of non-conventional sources of energy.
But, Nepal’s seemingly never-ending
political transition process is a matter of grave concern for India. Increasing
anti-India rhetoric, anti-India actions and rise in China’s clout therein are
predicaments which the Indian Establishment views as serious for the future of
Nepal-India relations.
The hostility which the current Nepalese Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai
of the caretaker Government faces is not receding; instead it is growing with
alarming speed. Perhaps Nepal
could borrow a leaf out of India’s
history in its first step towards political consolidation vis-à-vis forming its CA.
Recall, India’s Constituent Assembly was elected
from the provinces along-with some representatives from Princely States. Also,
the Indian Congress Party had won elections to the CA with an overwhelming
majority and could have hammered out any kind of Constitution with little or no
debate.
But, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru asked his most ardent critic B.R
Ambedkar to draft the Constitution and inducted a whole host of leaders
critical to the Congress from across the political spectrum: S.P. Mukherji, T
Bahadur Sapru, HN Kunzru, among others to be a part of the CA. These drafters
were given Congress tickets to contest the CA elections. This tactic ensured
the formation of an all-inclusive constitution.
In sum, all important Articles were debated and passed unanimously.
Perhaps Nepal
too could look at this Indian experience to gain some perspective on the ways to
settle disputes by co-opting leaders of all shades of opinion to prepare a
Constitution. Such a Constitution has the advantage of having been drafted by
people across a spectrum of ideologies, gives voice to all competing national
visions, allows room for intense debate by Parties to convince others of their
suggestions and thus can be said to be as representative in nature as possible.
---- INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)
|