Asia Times: India/Pakistan


	June 25, 2002	atimes.com

India/Pakistan

Nepal: Learning to live with giant neighbors
By Dhruba Adhikary

KATHMANDU - His Majesty King Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev, as he is formally addressed, began his first foreign trip on Sunday, to India, Nepal's giant neighbor to the south, where his state visit will last for six days. The monarch then heads for China, another country that shares a border with the kingdom, on the north, on July 9.

Despite the presence of more than 20,000 Tibetan exiles in its soil, Nepal, like only a few other countries, recognizes Tibet as an integral part of China. Prithvi Narayan Shah, the founder king of present-day Nepal, described his kingdom as "a yam between two boulders" almost three centuries ago. As is implied by this metaphor, Nepal's survival as an independent country depends on a balanced relationship with both of these competing Asian powers. "To play off one against the other will be a short-sighted policy," King Gyanendra told this correspondent during an audience three months after he was enthroned.

Gyanendra was declared king on June 4 last year after the death of his elder brother, King Birendra, on June 1. Birendra, his wife and their heir, Dipendra, were among 10 royals to lose their lives in a bloody shootout that took place at a palace dinner. Crown Prince Dipendra has been blamed for the carnage, but doubts persist in the public mind about the correctness of the story.

Anyhow, King Gyanendra vowed not to travel abroad during a year-long mourning period that, according to the Hindu lunar calendar, ended last Thursday. He, however, did have a chance to meet Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and several other South Asian leaders in January when they converged in Kathmandu for a regional summit.

The king's visit to India takes place at a time when people's perceptions of the monarchy as being a feudal - and totally irrelevant - institution appear to be changing. This change has its roots in the context of the country's political instability, mainly accentuated by rivalry among politicians. While Maoists and their sympathizers continue to hold the monarchy responsible for the abject poverty and backwardness in which much of the population lives, moderates, even among the leftists, appear to support the idea that the monarchy can still provide a basis for stability in a country with multiple ethnic groups.

Nepal's present constitution, written in the wake of a pro-democracy movement in 1990, places the monarchy in the same position as that in Britain - without power in day-to-day administration. Royalist forces contend that the statute should be amended if the king is expected to play a more enhanced role in the country's affairs, while the Monists are fighting to get rid of the monarchy altogether.

King Gyanendra's first foreign foray will address a number of long-standing disputes that Nepal has with India. However, Foreign Ministry officials do not expect too much of substance to result, noting that all that a visit at the head of the state level can do is generate goodwill, which in turn can create a congenial atmosphere for two-way talks at a later stage.

But the absence of a formal agenda, officials add, cannot prevent dignitaries from taking up issues that are relevant in the bilateral context. The Maoist insurgency in Nepal and the campaign against terrorism in India are likely to figure when the visiting monarch meets senior Indian leaders.

They might also touch on the list of Nepal's disputes with India, ranging from Bhutanese refugees (India guides Bhutan on external relations under a 1949 India-Bhutan pact), implementation of treaties on water resources, demarcation of border pillars to stop encroachments from the Indian side, and the initiative for regulating movement of people across the porous 1,700-kilometer border that separates the two South Asian countries.

Quoting Indian authorities, the Press Trust of India news agency recently indicated that the two sides would review "broad aspects of bilateral relations". Indian leaders, according to New Delhi media reports, are happy that King Gyanendra chose India as the first country for his foreign visit. They also appear to be taking satisfaction from a remark from a recent interview, "Our relations [with India] remain special because they are practical, pragmatic and beneficial."

Comments such as these and other interviews with the Indian media have ensured that the visit has attracted interest at the political level. "King Gyanendra coming to seek greater Indian role", read a front-page headline in last Wednesday's Times of India. The story, based on an interview with the King, stated that the monarch would aim to secure India's "understanding" for measures that he may be called on to take if the country's fractious political class is unable to provide a stable government after the elections scheduled for November 13. Another point that Dileep Padgaonkar's story contains is the possibility of the king seeking a higher level of Indian military assistance to combat Maoist terrorism. In other words, the interview shows that the king may be willing to accept India's long-standing plan to bring Nepal under its security umbrella in lieu of support for his possible step to regain the political power that the monarchy lost in 1990.

The palace has not reacted to the contents of this particular highly speculative story, but King Gyanendra's known views on the issues at stake do not concur with reports being circulated in the Indian media.

"A higher level of military assistance must not mean anything beyond Nepal's efforts to acquire moral and material support from friendly countries, including India," says security analyst Krishna Narayan Singh Thapa, a retired general of the Royal Nepali Army. After all, Nepal is the homeland of the legendary Gurkhas, he emphasizes, to state Nepal's own military capability in containing Maoist insurgency.

Political analysts are skeptical about a royal move affecting the democratic process, for which the King has already made public commitments. Similarly, India's democratic credentials forbid its leaders from embracing measures that would ultimately weaken the roots of democracy in a neighboring country. "Perhaps the Indian interviewer was reading too much between the lines," observes Professor Lok Raj Baral, director of the Nepal Center for Contemporary Studies.

However, analysts agree that communist China may have a different set of priorities. To the Chinese, political stability may be more important than anything else. Official Chinese policy, however, has been to deal with the government of Nepal, irrespective of its format or political base. It is for the people of Nepal to choose a political system that is best suited to them, Chinese diplomats say when confronted with a question about their preferences, although it is no secret that they would prefer not to see "Free Tibet" slogans being bandied about in Nepal.

While the Chinese do understand Nepal's geographical and cultural affinity with India, they become jittery when they see, as is happening now in the context of September 11, Indians and Americans trying to raise their presence and profile in the Himalayan kingdom. The Chinese sensitivity increases whenever there is an official attempt to extend "special" favors to India. This and other Chinese concerns are likely to be conveyed by its leaders when King Gyanendra goes to China early next month.

"Expressions such as 'special' not only make the Chinese suspicious about Nepal's official foreign policy," argues Madan Regmi of the China Study Center, "but also hurt the feelings of patriotic people of Nepal." Regmi's reference is to remarks contained in an Indian newspaper interview. "If the King indeed used the word 'special' in the interview, then I must say that his perception of relations with India are poles apart from what his father thought about them," contends Regmi.

As in other smaller South Asian countries, India's overbearing behavior is strongly resented in Nepal, and on numerous occasions protesters have taken to the streets to voice their dissatisfaction with what they perceive as New Delhi's meddling. Indian diplomats, meanwhile, are often at a loss to understand why Nepalis fail to appreciate the amount of economic gain that their country makes through its "unique" relationship with India.

Who is to be blamed for this situation? Seasoned diplomats think the initiative to correct India's image abroad must begin with New Delhi. "Instead of repeating platitudes of age-old relations," opines former ambassador Uddav Deo Bhatt, "Indian leaders should accept the reality that Nepal's relations with India began on August 15, 1947 - the day India became independent." He adds that as we are living in modern times, people expect a civilized interpretation of diplomatic relations.

(Š2002 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact ads@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)