| |
Royal
pilgrimage of a Hindu kind
By Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - King Gyanendra and Queen Komal of Nepal begin an 11-day pilgrimage
on Thursday, visiting a number of Hindu shrines in southern India. The palace
announcement to this effect indicated that the royal tour will be of a private
nature, and an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed this by
saying that the entourage will have only one officer (deputy chief of protocol)
to represent the ministry; all others are to be from the palace secretariat.
But the involvement of India's envoy in Kathmandu, Shyam Saran, in the trip
promises to make the royal presence in New Delhi a "formal" event.
This is King Gyanendra's first religious trip abroad since he ascended the
throne in extraordinary circumstances in June 2001 following a mass murder at
the palace. Constitutionally, Nepal is a Hindu country, but it shuns theocratic
features. Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati of Kanchipeeth, located near
Madras, has invited the world's only Hindu monarch to a festival of kotihom
(sacred fire). The royal couple are then scheduled to visit temples, some of
which have a tradition of extending the King of Nepal privileged access to the
inner sanctum. Normally, access to this area is confined to the concerned
priest, hence the gesture is exceptional, and presumably based on the belief
that a king is the living incarnation of the Hindu deity Bishnu.
The cultural dimension of the traditional Nepal-India relationship is obvious;
but it is the political arena where the attention is focused, as and when a
high-level visit takes place in each other's capitals. Bilateral relations at
the political and diplomatic level started in 1947 after India and Pakistan
emerged as independent countries. Nepal's independent status existed long
before these two states emerged in South Asia.
King Gyanendra's itinerary will commence in New Delhi, where he will meet
President A P J Abdul Kalam, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and other
Indian leaders. While his meeting with Kalam will be of an introductory nature,
the talks between the 56-year-old Nepali monarch and Vajpayee are expected to
be substantive, mainly concentrating on issues relating to Nepal's Maoist
insurgency and the latest efforts for a peace dialogue.
The king is also likely to seek New Delhi's cooperation as Nepal's 1,800-plus
kilometer border with India remains unregulated, and thereby abused by Maoist
rebels and criminals alike. Kathmandu is in favor of regulating it, but it
remains open at New Delhi's insistence. Other possible subjects of discussion
include Bhutanese refugees, who have crossed over to Nepal through Indian
territory, water resources and demarcation of the international border.
Important changes have taken place in Nepal since last June when King Gyanendra
paid a state visit to India. Significant among these has been the royal
proclamation of October 4, through which the king sacked the elected prime
minister, Sher Bahadur Deuba, and assumed all state powers. The parliament had
already been dissolved - in May.
Although the king has repeatedly expressed his commitment to democracy and a
multiparty system, no precise dates have yet been set for parliamentary
elections. Presently, a government consisting of royal nominees is in place and
whose constitutionality has been openly challenged by the political parties
with representation in the 205-member House of Representatives. There is no
indication how and when the democratic constitution enacted in 1990 will again
be activated. India's position on this has been that it considers
constitutional monarchy and a multiparty system as the two supporting pillars
of Nepal's democratic process.
On the bilateral plane, the visiting Nepali head of the state may utilize the
opportunity to dispel fears from the minds of Indian leaders that the enhanced
international attention Nepal has been receiving in the past couple of years -
in the context of efforts to end the Maoist insurrection - will not affect
Nepal's close relations with India; nor will Nepal ignore India's legitimate
security interests in the region. The monarch may also tell his Indian hosts
that Nepal's other neighbor, China, also has similar security concerns,
primarily because of the ongoing agitation for a free Tibet.
The United States and the United Kingdom are among the donors who have come
forward to help Nepal in its bid to contain the Maoist movement. The
insurrection has claimed over 7,000 lives since the rebels launched a "people's
war" in early 1996. Last week, Britain's special representative for Nepal, Sir
Jeffrey James, visited Kathmandu to discuss initiatives to be taken at the
international level. The British envoy, who is to be the focal point on this
issue, later flew to New Delhi to coordinate matters with Indian authorities.
Earlier, US deputy assistant secretary of state Donald Camp told a Heritage
Foundation audience in Washington about a perception that "Nepal is one part of
the world in which Indian, Chinese and American interests are in almost perfect
consonance". Camp stated, "In close coordination with India and Britain, we
plan to continue our efforts to help Nepal right itself, end the violence, and
return to the path of peace and democracy."
In addition to this, both Washington and London are reported to have assured
New Delhi that the West's willingness to help Kathmandu need not be viewed with
suspicion. But these pledges do not seem to have satisfied the hardliners in
New Delhi who still prefer to think the way that they thought in the 1950s. K R
Malkani, a senior leader of the ruling Hindu nationalist party, the Bharatiya
Janata Party, is one such person. At one point, the Vajpayee government was
compelled to dissociate itself from his controversial remarks on Nepal.
More recently, on January 29, Maoist rebels and representatives of the king
announced a ceasefire to initiate talks for finding a political solution. But
India's reaction to this and other related developments has remained lukewarm.
Some Indians in authority appear uncomfortable because Kathmandu did not hold
consultations with New Delhi before agreeing to the ceasefire with the Maoists.
Their argument is that since Nepali Maoists have links with similar groups in
India, New Delhi needs to take interest in how the ceasefire was agreed on.
"This contention can be easily construed as a pretext for interference," says a
senior Nepali army officer who did not want to be identified. "What are the
India's SSB forces doing if they are not already picking up Maoist suspects?"
countered the officer, alluding to India's 70,000-strong Special Security
Bureau that recently deployed some of its forces along the Nepal-India border.
How parochial an outlook India's Ministry of External Affairs holds regarding
India's relationship with its smaller neighbor surfaced at a February seminar
in New Delhi at which Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal was a participant. Media
reports said that Sibal, who once served as a junior Indian diplomat in
Kathmandu, spoke "in his personal capacity" to express concerns over activism
in Nepal by the international community.
Such an alarmist view has been criticized even within India. "New Delhi needs
to shed its untenable expectations," said C Raja Mohan of The Hindu newspaper,
"that the world can be kept out of Nepal, and that the problems in Kathmandu
can be resolved purely in a bilateral framework with India."
King Gyanendra has yet another unenviable task of convincing his own people. He
has to assure them that he will not agree to deals - covert or overt - which
would compromise Nepal's national interests. While a sizable proportion of the
population accepts the monarchy as a nationalist institution, there are
individuals who hold critical views on particular kings who have ruled Nepal in
the past. They often cite examples when kings with excessive lust for absolute
powers forgot patriotism. "India has an eye on our water resources," says
Shankar Pokharel, a member of the Unified Marxist-Leninist party - the dominant
party in the opposition.
"And Indians know, said Pokharel, "that the incumbent king is in a difficult
position. They may throw all kinds of bait; the king must be careful about
that."
Madhav Kumar Rimal, editor of Spotlight weekly, says the following in his
latest column: "We do trust King Gyanendra will be able to meet the
expectations of his people to convince the Indians the imperativeness of
following a transparent and friendly policy towards Nepal."
Analyst Jayaraj Acharya, a former ambassador to the United Nations, appears in
favor of a more pragmatic approach. "Adopting suitable measures to convince
India for its uninterrupted cooperation should get the top order of priority,"
says Acharya. Geography demands that Nepal should maintain a high level of
understanding with India at all times. Seasoned diplomat Keshav Raj Jha, who
now heads the Nepal Council of World Affairs, is of the opinion that India,
too, stands to gain if there is stability in Nepal. New Delhi therefore should
continue to make contributions toward curbing Maoist violence.
"For example, India could help sever their supply lines and deadly
connections," says Jha. Needless to emphasize, these lines exist in India - not
in the UK or the US.
All in all, Nepal's relationship with India is unique - often compared with the
ties that exist between Canada and the United States. Yadunath Khanal, the
grand old man of Nepali diplomacy, recalls his tenure in Washington (along with
responsibilities in Ottawa) and offers a different viewpoint: "As sky is
comparable only with sky, the battle between Rama and Ravana can be compared
only with the same fight; there is no other analogy to liken relations between
Nepal and India," he says with a reference to the Hindu epic poem
Ramayana.
But the hawks in India's foreign relations apparatus do not appear keen to
retain the uniqueness of the existing friendship. Analyst M R Josse suspects
that there is an ongoing ploy to make Nepal more dependent on India, and
eventually to bring it down "almost to the level of Bhutan". Through a treaty
signed in 1949, India continues to "guide" Bhutan in matters relating to
defense and external relations.
However, will King Gyanendra let this kind of thing happen, even if there is a quid
pro quo in the form of New Delhi's support for an active monarchy?
Probably not. Those who are familiar with Gyanendra's shrewdness do not think
that he will go for expediency at the expense of the monarchy's long-term
interests. After all, there is no substitute for strength derived from one's
own people.
(©2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact
content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
