June 7, 2001	atimes.com

India/Pakistan India coy on Nepal NEW DELHI - By right, the pro-Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in India should have hit it off with the world's only Hindu kingdom, Nepal, which is now struggling to recover from the massacre of its royal family. But although their religious-cultural links are bolstered by an open border and free access to labor, relations between the two countries have been steadily deteriorating in recent years. Anti-Indian sentiment reached a new low in December when Kathmandu was rocked by rioting after rumors spread that Indian matinee idol Hrithik Roshan had made disparaging remarks about Nepal. In such a tinderbox situation, India's foreign ministry has judiciously refrained from commenting on the Friday night massacre of King Birendra, his queen, his children and his siblings. India has so far also not commented on the hasty enthronement of Gyanendra, the sole survivor of the ancient Shah dynasty, as the new king. His coronation on Monday sparked off rioting in Kathmandu by youths dissatisfied with Gyanendra's lame statement on Sunday that the killings resulted from the accidental explosion of an automatic weapon. A curfew imposed then was lifted on Wednesday, but soldiers continue to patrol the streets to prevent any repetition of the riots in which three people died. Gyanendra had opposed the ushering in of democracy into Nepal by his slain brother in 1990 and the media has charged him with harboring an anti-India attitude - so much so that Nepal's high commissioner in New Delhi, Bhekh Bahadur Thapa, was compelled to clarify that no changes in bilateral ties would be caused by Gyanendra's succession to the monarchy. "My advice to the people of India, especially the media, is not to indulge in speculation based on rumor or preconceived notions," Thapa said, adding that the ties between the two countries "predate written history and will continue in perpetuity". Thapa's confidence stemmed from the fact that Nepal's royal family has close blood ties with several of India's erstwhile royal families spread from western Rajasthan through central Madhya Pradesh and to eastern Orissa states. But with memories of December's anti-India riots in Kathmandu still fresh, Indian officials are wary and careful not to speak out of turn. "We are seriously studying the developments in Nepal," was the sole comment Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has ventured to offer the media on the tragedy that befell the Shah dynasty, whose restoration to power New Delhi helped in 1951. That restoration cost Gyanendra the throne on which he was placed briefly as a puppet child ruler by the tyrannical Rana aristocracy, while his father, King Tribhuvan, and his elder brother, the slain King Birendra, fled to exile in India. Records of the time say King Tribhuvan offered to merge his kingdom with India, following a plan under which the subcontinent's princely states acceded either to India or Pakistan on gaining independence from Britain in 1947. But that is a chapter that many in Nepal would rather forget. In December, even as the row over remarks that actor Roshan never made subsided, BJP leader and ideologue K R Malkani stirred up another hornet's nest by stating publicly that India had made a grave blunder by not accepting King Tribhuvan's offer. According to the outspoken Malkani, the real issue between the two countries was an all too cosy relationship developing between Nepal and Pakistan, India's rival in South Asia. "Probably Nepal thinks that it will be in a better position to deal with India if it had Pakistan's support. Nepal should be careful as its pro-Pakistan tilt is very short-sighted," Malkani then said. India officially disassociated itself from Malkani's contentions but the Indian government adopted a punitive approach to the December 1999 hijacking of an Indian Airlines airliner from Kathmandu to Afghanistan by suspected agents of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). The approach, made in the name of security, included restrictions on air travel to Nepal, which deterred the tens of thousands of Indians who holiday there annually. Tourism is Nepal's single biggest industry, bringing in 15 percent of its foreign exchange earnings. Many of those restrictions have since been eased and last month Nepal launched a special campaign to attract Indian visitors, giving them concessional tariffs in hotels and for trekking and travel services. Anger at Indian "hegemony" in Nepalese journals is often mixed with jingoistic pronouncements. The Kathmandu-based weekly People's Review advocates re-uniting all Nepalese-speaking communities, including those in territories lost to India under the 1816 Sugauli Treaty at the close of the Anglo-Nepal wars. "The glorious past of the Nepalese should always serve as a decisive inspiration for bringing the entire Nepalese-speaking community under one parliament," urged the Review. Substantial Nepalese-speaking communities exist in India's northern Uttaranchal state, the eastern autonomous hill district of Darjeeling in the state of West Bengal and in Sikkim state. Civil society movements in Nepal such as the Campaign for Solidarity and Friendship, promoted by the South Asia Forum for Human Rights (SAFHR), have pointed out that nationalism in the decade-old multi-party democracy under constitutional monarchy has needlessly become synonymous with anti-Indian feeling. The movement recognizes that much of Nepal's political instability stems from the fledgling democracy's inability to handle and accommodate its multi-ethnic polity and there was a tendency for the frustration to be transferred to external scapegoats. While India has been careful with its official statements and even advised media to "respect the institutions of Nepal and the sentiments of the Nepali people in this hour of loss", Hindu fundamentalist leaders have been harping on religious connections. For example, Ashok Singhal, chief of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Forum), which is closely associated with the Vajpayee's BJP, declared on Tuesday that the massacre of Nepal's royal family was a blow to the 1 billion Hindus who live in India and elsewhere. A well-known economist and former finance minister in West Bengal state, Ashok Mitra holds Hindu fundamentalism directly responsible for deteriorating Indo-Nepal relations. "Nepal will continue to be the only Hindu kingdom in the world, her people will continue to be devoutly Hindu and yet will turn into inveterate enemies of the Hindutva mongers [religious fanatics]," he predicted. The massacre of the royal family has reinforced doubts about the survival of the centuries-old monarchy and its young multi-party system of governance. Nepal is still reeled in turmoil as its 23 million citizens find it hard to digest the fast-moving developments that saw three kings on the throne in as many days. Although many analysts believe the monarchy will survive the latest turmoil, its prestige in the eyes of the people will remain diminished for a long time to come. "The monarchy will survive, but in a diminished state," says Krishna Hachhethu, a political analyst with the Center for Nepal and Asian Studies (CNAS), a semi-government think tank in Kathmandu, the Nepali capital. "Now everything depends on the actions of the new monarch, whether he is as committed to multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy as his late brother King Birendra," he added. Nepal is one of the world's poorest countries with annual per capita income hovering just above US$200. Ruled for much of its history by authoritarian regimes, the nation reverted to parliamentary democracy in 1990 after a popular uprising which turned then absolute monarch King Birendra into a constitutional monarch, curtailing much of his powers. The late king, however, won widespread admiration from the people for his efforts to consolidate the democracy which he was initially reluctant to give in to. That fact was underscored this week by the spontaneous outpouring of grief over his death. New King Gyanendra, 53, was for much of his adult years out of the media spotlight, emerging only occasionally for his commendable job as a conservationist. He has also hit the headlines as the father of Prince Paras, whom many believe to be a wayward prince involved in at least two vehicular homicides which remain uninvestigated and unexplained. Local media have reported that Gyanendra has been a hard-liner inside the Royal Palace for years, and he had vehemently opposed democracy in 1990. Whatever the doubts, he tried to dispel those late on Monday. In a statement made over national television, the new king proclaimed his commitment to adhere to constitutional monarchy and democracy just as his brother had done. Commenting on the statement, the influential Kathmandu Post newspaper said the message was a step in the right direction. "King Gyanendra has done well to firmly make public his commitment to multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy. This has allayed fears and doubts among many," it wrote in an editorial. It may have been a step in the right direction, but analysts will be waiting for action rather than words to see which way the palace veers in the future. What is clear is that King Gyanendra has a difficult task of trying to fill the big shoes of his immensely popular late elder brother. (Asia Times Online/Inter Press Service)

Front | China | Southeast Asia | Japan | Koreas | India/Pakistan | Central Asia/Russia | Oceania Business Briefs | Global Economy | Asian Crisis | Media/IT | Editorials | Letters | Search/Archive

back to the top ©2001 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd. Building B - 5th Floor, 102/1 Phra Arthit Road, Chanasangkhram, Bangkok 10200, Thailand