Nepal caught in vortex of regional rivalry
By Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - The terror attack on Mumbai on November 26 quickly developed into
renewed rivalry between India and Pakistan, and small Nepal has been dragged
into the controversy.
The latest dispute, focusing on the lone survivor among the 10 terrorists, is a
case in point.
Nepal's Foreign Ministry issued a statement on December 19 stating that the
man, Ajmal Kasab, was "neither arrested in Nepal nor was he handed over to any
other country". This reaction came in the context of a Pakistani media report
which earlier claimed
that Kasab was arrested by Nepali police in 2005, and was quietly handed over
to Indian authorities.
According to a claim made by a Pakistani lawyer, C M Faruque, Kasab was kept by
Indian security, together with other Pakistani detainees.
"The people arrested in Nepal had gone there on legal visas for business, but
Indian agencies are in the habit of capturing Pakistanis from Nepal and
afterwards implicating them in Mumbai-like incidents to malign Pakistan," the
lawyer was quoted as saying. Indian officials described these allegations as
sheer propaganda. But this report was picked up by some Indian media outlets,
including The Asian Age newspaper.
While this Nepali official's stand has helped Indian authorities maintain their
original contention that the terrorists came from Pakistan to Mumbai via a sea
route, there have been several occasions in the past when New Delhi has alleged
that Nepal has become a den of terrorists sponsored by Pakistan's intelligence
agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
There have also been cases in which New Delhi has complained that Nepali
authorities did not take action against Pakistani visitors who were allegedly
involved in the circulation of fake Indian currency. Pakistan's contention has
been that it is prepared to cooperate when Nepali authorities can produce
concrete proof of the involvement of Pakistani nationals in unlawful
activities.
If a distant neighbor like Pakistan finds it useful to keep its intelligence
agency "active" in Nepal, it can be assumed that India's external intelligence
service, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), is "very active". China's
intelligence agency is also likely to be involved.
The presence of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) also cannot be ruled
out. The British are also quite adept in handling their discreet spy network in
a beneficial manner.
Who could be better placed to perceive such movements than Maoist leader
Prachanda, who as prime minister heads Nepal's interim coalition. Prachanda
revealed to journalists last week that what outwardly looked like a quarrel
among political parties was in fact a confrontation between external forces.
What he did not concede is that the primary reason for enhanced external
interest in Nepal is the rise of the Maoist brand of communism in the Himalayan
country.
India's first official reaction on the Mumbai carnage came from Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh, who blamed "outsiders" for their role in the tragic event in
which nearly 200 people were killed. He then went on to warn "neighbors" of
consequences if they continued to allow terrorists to use their territory.
While Manmohan did not leave any doubt that Pakistan was the first target, his
statement expressed New Delhi's suspicion that smaller countries around India
also had to share the blame.
In an article appearing in the December 19 edition of Indian magazine
Frontline, a writer said blaming Pakistan was a "convenient option" for India.
If this comment is taken at face value, one can conclude that blaming smaller
neighbors like Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka is even more convenient. This
has been the case from time to time.
New Delhi's insistence that Kathmandu should enter a new extradition treaty
with India is being seen in this context. One of the provisions of the proposed
treaty requires the Nepali authorities to hand over to India suspects who could
be citizens of other countries living or working in Nepal.
Kathmandu has not agreed to this pact so far in view of the concerns from
Pakistan and China, among others. The existing extradition treaty, signed in
1953, is seen as anachronistic by New Delhi. Surprisingly, Indians do not take
an interest in abrogating the more controversial friendship treaty signed in
1950. Almost all of Nepal's political parties have publicly described this pact
as "unequal".
Nepal remains in an unenviable situation whereby it must assure its immediate
neighbors that it won't allow its soil to be used by the foes of friendly
neighbors. Beijing's concerns are directed to Tibetan exiles - including those
sneaking in from their bases in India. India's worries revolve around Nepal's
possible bid to use the "China card" as well as Pakistan's perceived attempt to
use Nepali territory for deadly ISI-funded Muslim schemes against India.
Pakistan, a nuclear power, and an ally of both China and the United States,
would obviously be concerned were its nationals visiting Nepal not provided
with basic courtesy and security.
The Nepali intelligentsia is concerned with a thorny question: if Nepal's
precious time and scarce resources have to be utilized merely to address
concerns of others, when will Nepal get a chance to look after its own safety,
security and welfare?
History suggests that New Delhi often disregards what it preaches to others.
For example, it sends armed security units inside Nepal to pick up suspected
persons before their cases are tried in Nepal's courts. One striking example of
this surfaced in February, when Nepali police officials handed over an
absconding doctor who was allegedly running a major kidney transplant racket.
Amit Kumar would have been transferred to India after the completion of
extradition procedures, but New Delhi used diplomatic channels to take the
suspect out of Nepal.
Former prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala ordered Nepal police to hand over
the suspect to Indian authorities without any legal basis. Koirala's friendly
gesture was later reciprocated by New Delhi during April elections when India's
national security advisor, M K Narayanan, used a television channel to extend
India's support to Koirala and his party. That such support did not help him
get re-elected prime minister is another story.
"We never put all our eggs in any [one] basket," Narayanan said in a September
interview published in The Week magazine. While this statement was made in the
context of Pakistan, it sends a pithy message to all in the region.
While Narayanan was spared from the humiliation of home minister Shivaraj
Patil, who was forced to resign in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks,
security experts do not doubt the failure of India's intelligence apparatus.
Conversations that this writer had with incumbent and former security officials
in Nepal suggest that New Delhi is currently attempting to cover up its
failure.
To accuse Pakistan without any empirical, credible evidence is clearly an
attempt to divert the attention of the Indian public. Pakistan is fighting
terrorists along its border with Afghanistan and is unsuccessfully engaged with
terrorism within its own territory. Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari has
offered a joint investigation on the Mumbai incident and has pledged to take
action if non-state players in his country are found to have been involved in
the attacks.
As officials in India continue to play the blame game, independent Indian
experts and analysts do not approve of methods which might prove expedient in
the short term.
"Experts on the issue of terrorism say that blaming Pakistan will be a
convenient option," wrote John Cherian of Frontline magazine on December 19.
Such a policy is bound to raise tensions and derail the peace process being
pursued through what has been billed as bilateral dialogue. Brahma Chellaney,
often perceived as a hawkish strategist, also thinks it prudent to employ
options of diplomatic, economic and political orientation. "Between the two
extremes - inaction and military action - lie a hundred different options,"
Chellaney wrote in The Hindu, on December 20.
A democratic country's actions naturally must be sane, humane and transparent
to the highest extent possible. It was probably lack of transparency which led
Indian minister, Abdul Rahman Antulay, to raise doubts about the the killing of
a security official who was heading an anti-terrorism squad. "Anyone going to
the roots of terror has always been a target," the Indian media quoted the
minister as saying. Antulay's party was embarrassed at his suspicion of foul
play and the opposition criticized the Muslim minister for saying something
which could help Pakistan.
Nepali people are reminded of the hijacking of an Indian aircraft exactly nine
years ago on December 24, 1999. The New Delhi-bound flight from Kathmandu was
hijacked minutes after take off and was relinquished in Kandahar, Afghanistan,
a week later. New Delhi was prompt to punish Kathmandu: suspending Indian
Airline services for several months for its lax security. When flights were
resumed, Nepal was forced to accept Indian security personnel frisking
passengers at Kathmandu airport.
India even labelled a Nepali passenger as one of the hijackers. Later, when
this could not be proved, India did not offer any apology for the mistake.
Madan Lal Khurana, a minister in the government of former prime minister Atal
Bihari Vajpayee, said publicly in April 2006 that some of the "inside
information" he possessed about the 1999 hijacking was "sensational". He
promised to reveal details of the behind-the-scenes activity at an appropriate
time.
Nepal's strategic location makes its stability vital in regard to containing
possible attacks on neighboring nations. As such, many Nepali analysts feel
that alleged foreign meddling in the country's domestic politics should come to
an end.
This is something even Indian politicians admit from time to time.
"Keeping in view past experiences with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, it is better
that we keep away from the internal affairs of that country," Indian
parliamentarian S Sudhakar Reddy told the press after returning from an
official visit to Nepal in June 2006.
Dhruba Adhikary, a former head of Nepal Press Institute, is a
Kathmandu-based journalist.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
