Should it or must it not take up Madhesi issueIJ
Amid the ongoing tussle between the Madhesi groups and the Government of Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda', there comes news that New Delhi has assured of ‘all possible assistance’ to Kathmandu for the proper conduct of local body elections in Nepal, scheduled for May. The commitment came after Prachanda connected with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and sought his help. It is not clear as to what sort of assistance the Modi regime can extend to the Government of Nepal in this matter. Does it mean that New Delhi will use its influence with the Madhesi leaders with whom it has had a long association, and convince them to at least not disrupt the election if they do not wish to support themIJ Or is Prime Minister Prachanda expecting the Modi Government to send across a sterner messageIJ At the extreme end, would Nepal want India to get too closely involved with what is strictly an internal matter of the Nepalese peopleIJ These are tantalizing questions, the answers to which are not readily available. Admittedly, the local body elections are important to Nepal, since they are taking place after close to 20 years. They are a crucial step to empower the people at the grassroots, which in turn would strengthen Nepal's democratic fabric that can do with reinforcements. But the counter view is as important: The significance of the democratic exercise gets considerably diminished when a large section of the population — in this case, the Madhesis — are dismissive of the move and have called for a boycott, and worse, a stepped-up agitation in protest. The situation before New Delhi is tricky. On the one hand, it has consistently backed the Madhesis' demand for a just representation in their country's political system. Over the last many years, it has not shied away from openly articulating those sentiments. But on the other hand, India would not like to, at a time when tentative steps are being taken to resolve the issue, be seen as opposing the conduct of local body elections. It evidently trusts the Prachanda regime, which will have greater political heft once the local body polls are conducted successfully, to address the Madhesis' grievances comprehensively. But then, it is also possible, theoretically, that Prime Minister Prachanda may feel emboldened by such success to give the Madhesis the short shrift.
India has to tread carefully, lest it be accused of ‘interfering' in the internal affairs of a neighbouring sovereign nation. It has faced this accusation on many occasions in the past, often undeservingly and at times with some reason. The new element now is that there is no guarantee that the Madhesi groups will listen to New Delhi. On the contrary, they would expect India to persuade the Prachanda Government to ‘see reason' and would take it as a ‘betrayal' in case India did not. Since New Delhi does not want unrest to erupt on the streets of Nepal in any situation, it will have to do a fine balancing act.