Helping Nepal without interfering in its affairs
India must deal cautiously though not contemptuously with Nepal’s former Prime Minister and senior Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai’s appeal for help in resolving the deadlock over the Constitution. The ruling Nepali Congress-Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-leninist) combine is determined to push through the document on the strength of its two-third majority in the Constituent Assembly, whereas Mr Bhattarai’s party, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), is seeking a consensus whereby its reservations are addressed before the Constitution gets adopted.
The issue is largely the making of the warning parties in Nepal who have not been able to rise above petty politics in the larger interests of the people who have been looking forward to an inclusive Constitution for years now. For historical and geographical reasons, India has always played an important role every time a crisis broke out in neighbouring Nepal, and it is difficult to imagine that New Delhi will remain strictly hands-off in the present situation. However, there are perils in being proactive. India has often faced criticism from the political establishment, academics and activists in Nepal for its ‘interventionist’ role in recent years.
Ironically, Mr Bhattarai’s party had been among the most strident voices against New Delhi — it had accused India of propping up the monarchy; of fomenting revolt against its first Government in Kathmandu in mid-2008; of seeking to extend a sort of hegemony through bilateral agreements relating to hydro-power projects, etc. This irony is further compounded by another development: As Mr Bhattarai has admitted, it was his party that had taken the lead in 2002 to seek the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government’s help to strike an agreement between the mainstream parties and the Maoists. The former Prime Minister is, therefore, not doing anything different now. The problem lies in the interpretation. How much of ‘help’ is benign and what is that line which, when crossed, makes such assistance, an ‘interference’IJ
In this context, it may be recalled that when Prime Minister Narendra Modi had a few months ago called upon political parties of Nepal to waste no time in adopting a Constitution, sections of the intelligentsia and even the political establishment there had raised eyebrows. They believed that Mr Modi was needlessly intervening in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. Given that he has only just begun to bring relations with Nepal back of track after the bilateral had faced years of neglect, it is unlikely, and would be unwise for him and for the Government of India to be seen as ‘interfering’ in the neighbour’s business. Yet, New Delhi must do something, and do so gently.
It cannot afford another round of unrest in a friendly country. While Mr Bhattarai has all but ruled out a return to the violent days when armed Maoists sought change by force, he has clearly indicated at some form of a long-drawn-out protest movement to compel Kathmandu to cede to his party’s (as well those of its allies, the Madhesis and the Janjatis) demands on changes in the Constitution — primarily on the parameters for the creation of new States. Beyond offering sensible advice, India must leave the Nepalese leaders to their means.