Ex-PM Baburam Bhattarai has openly sought India’s role in Nepal. Maoists want to divide the country on ethnic lines to change the voting pattern in their favour. As under Modi Government, India is no longer seen to be openly meddling in the internal affairs of Nepal, any active role in political affairs of the Himalayan nation will be considered as an attempt to subvert the democratic process
The mammoth electoral success of Narendra Modi to power in India marks a new beginning in the chequered history of India-Nepal relations. Till recently, India was perceived to be interfering in the internal affairs of Nepal after the fall of monarchy in a popular mass movement in 2006, and many held India’s bureaucracy — especially its Intelligence wing — responsible for Nepal’s failure to write a new Constitution.
While the degree of India’s involvement in Nepal is often exaggerated, it is true that relations between the two neighbours hit rock bottom following the regime change in Nepal. The cadre of the UCPN (Maoist), the main Opposition party that launched the decade-long insurgency before joining the peace process in 2006, even threw shoes at Indian Ambassador to Nepal Rakesh Sood in a public function. Fomenting anti-India sentiments in Nepal became a tool to garner public support for political gains.
But the Indian Government, especially after the rise of Modi as Prime Minister, took concrete measures to rectify bilateral relations. PM Modi got rock star treatment on his first-ever official visit to Nepal last August. He announced $1 billion line of credit to Nepal, a move widely appreciated in the Himalayan country. Since then, the two countries have signed the historic Power Trade Agreement (PTA), and
two Indian firms and Investment Board Nepal have also concluded Project Development Agreements (PDAs) for two mega hydropower plants in Nepal — Upper Karnali and Arun-III. India is no longer seen to be openly meddling in the internal affairs of Nepal.
Nepali politicians, on the other hand, continue to seek the southern neighbour’s favour for political gains in Nepal. The recent visit to Delhi by Nepal’s former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, who is also the second-in-command in the Maoist party, is also meant to curry favour with India for political power at home.
Contention of the Maoist party
Riding the anti-incumbency tide, the Maoists became the largest party in the first-ever held Constituent Assembly elections in 2008. But the party did not have the required two-thirds majority for drafting a new Constitution. Instead of seeking compromises, the Maoist Government led by Bhattarai sought fresh polls in the hope that his party would garner a two-thirds majority. Such a victory was to allow the Maoists to federalise the country along ethnic lines. In its election manifesto, the party clearly stated: “We promise to the people that if we fail to garner consensus on the contents of the new Constitution in the first six months, we will begin the democratic process of drafting the Constitution through voting.”
The Maoists thought they would sweep the elections as they have the “popular” agenda of ethnic federalism. But the agenda was not so popular. They were shocked by the election results as they had been relegated to the distant third. After being defeated in the election, the Maoists argued that the new Constitution should be written through the “mandate of the People’s War”, and not through the “mandate of the people’s votes”. As per the interim Constitution, the new Constitution should be endorsed by the two-thirds majority of the Assembly. And, this is the crux of the problem.
Reasons behind the deadlock
The traditional parties have accepted the Maoists’ demand to federalise the country. But the parties are still at odds over the type of federalism the country should adopt. The demand is to go for ethnic federalism giving preferential rights to the dominant ethnic groups. This is quite problematic as the country is home to more than 125 ethnic groups and has a mixed population.
While it is good to accommodate all the ethnic groups through the policy of inclusion and promote their languages and cultures, dividing the country ethnically and giving priority rights to certain groups may lead to ethnic conflicts. This is the reason why the other political parties oppose the Maoists’ demand for ethnic federalism (euphemistically called identity-based federalism).
The Maoists have put forward this demand after making strategic calculations. They think that once the country is divided ethnically, it will change the voting pattern. In their scheme of things, ethnic federalism will lead to ethnic parties and kick-start the politics of coalition, which will damage the electoral base of the traditional parties and give them electoral leverage.
So it is not clear whether ethnic federalism will really benefit the underprivileged. But the Maoists have calculated that it will certainly ensure their place in the electoral politics. But the Maoist demand has been vehemently opposed by other major parties.
Role of India
It is in this context that Bhattarai has openly sought India’s role in Nepal. His argument is that India is a “stakeholder” in Nepal’s peace process and should do its best to resolve the conflict.
It’s true that India played a role in the regime change in Nepal. But the political situation was different back then. Former King Gyanendra had usurped power imposing an autocratic rule and there were also the chances of the former rebels joining the political mainstream through mediations.
But, Nepal is now a republic and the people can choose their rulers through periodic elections. Parties are fighting for power, not for democratic rights at this moment. So, any active role on the part of India will be understood as an attempt to subvert the democratic process. On top of that, India doesn’t have a magical wand to solve the current conflict in the Himalayan nation. If India actively gets involved in the power tussle, it will end up supporting one force at the expense of the other.
It seems that Indian officials have understood this reality. And that’s the reason why Bhattarai is seeking the help from Indian media and retired bureaucrats to pressurise the Establishment to intervene in Nepal for his party’s benefits.
It is not that India is not playing a political role in Nepal. India’s Ambassador to Nepal Ranjit Ray is trying his best to resolve the issues by meeting politicians. As a close neighbour, we think that India certainly wants a stable Nepal. But, any active involvement of Indian officials in the current mess of Nepali politics will only backfire, and hurt the improving bilateral relations initiated by the Modi Government. India should resist any temptation. Instead, India should tell the Maoists strictly to honour the people’s vote and contest the next elections on the basis of their grievances.
(The writer is a Kathmandu-based journalist and columnist)