Non-inclusive Constitution rightly worries India
India's expression of concern over the violence in Nepal since the adoption of its Constitution on Sunday is a legitimate follow-up to its belief that the historic move ought to have been “an occasion for joy and satisfaction, not agitation and violence”. The sequence of events has not taken India by surprise. Worried that the new Constitution may not be truly representative and inclusive, New Delhi had sent Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar to Kathmandu on September 19 with an unambiguous message: While India supported the formalisation of the Constitution, seven years in the making, it also expected Nepal's political leadership to be “flexible and mature” in its accommodation of the country's diverse demographics. The Foreign Secretary's visit was a reflection of India's apprehension, not completely unfounded, that the new Constitution would not meet the aspirations of all sections of the Nepalese people. Unfortunately, by marginalising a sizeable 40 per cent of its population comprising the Madhesis and Tharu ethnic communities, Nepal, in fact, has displayed a regrettable, indeed an inexplicable, lack of maturity. It hardly bears reiteration that, internally, the Nepalese leadership's rejection of the pleas of two sizeable communities for equal representation only formalises their political marginalisation. Subsequently confirming India's worst fears, the Madhesis have reacted violently to the new Constitution. The predictable noise over New Delhi's so-called interference in its neighbour's internal affairs notwithstanding, India has legitimate concerns over the spiraling unrest and violence, given the demographic overlap of Madhes, a Terai region of Nepal, and Bihar. One-fifth of the region is part of the Nepalese landmass; the rest lies on the Indian side of the border. Any unrest in Nepal, therefore, contains the dangerous potential of the violence spilling into India and gaining in proportion.
Indeed, in not paying heed to India's repeated exhortations, Nepal has clearly sought to alienate a neighbour with which it shares a contiguous border of 1,751km and upon which the land-locked country has been traditionally dependent for unhindered passage of goods and people. Nepal's obdurate indifference to India's concerns points in the worrying direction of China, traces of which came to the surface during India's unilateral decision to assist Nepal in the aftermath of the massive earthquake this April. Within nine days of the earthquake, India was asked by Nepal to withdraw its rescue operations. Kathmandu's directive fuelled the speculation that China, which has accelerated its economic engagement in Nepal considerably in recent years, may have helped script the marching orders given to Indian rescue teams. For a while now, China has sought to register its presence in India's backyard through various infrastructure projects, its economic inroads an effective tool to gain political significance in the region. India, on its part, is acutely aware of this nudge. For the moment, however, New Delhi must rest in the hope that the ongoing situation in Nepal is resolved “in an atmosphere free from violence and intimidation”, ensuring the least collateral damage for India.