The Times of India has published an editorial comment on Nepal’s efforts to make Nepal-China relations more productive. Using diplomatic language, the editorial comment sees Nepali leaders’ visit to China as their China-Card politics. The newspaper writes, “In a recent interview, Nepal’s caretaker premier Prachanda suggested that India needn’t lose sleep over a Nepal-China friendship treaty should it crystallise. Such an accord would have China recognise Nepal’s territorial integrity; Nepal, in turn, would respect Beijing’s sensitivities on Tibet.”
The term ‘China-Card’ is a stereotyped one in the context of Nepal’s peaceful and friendly stance in the global context. Nepal has never been a nuclear power. Nor has she adopted a partial and aggressive foreign policy. She has always stood for friendly relations with UN members. But the perception on the Indian side is more conservative and feudalistic. The hegemonistic attitude on the Indian side is apparent through the Indian media.
Nepal needs the help of both India and China. As a genuine neighbor, she cannot discriminate any of the two neighbors. But due to deep-seated traditions of Nepali leaders’ depending on India for making political and national decisions, some serious problems in the perception of Indian authorities, media and artists are regularly seen. They are now trained to think that Nepal should not do anything without asking India.
This is the latest question the Nepalis are raising today. They want to break the tradition of slave politics. They want to relieve slave-minded leaders of their duties so that the Nepalis can also learn to be independent. So far, it has been quite difficult for us to learn to decide independently (e.g. the scandal of Pushupati priest appointment: Indian priest Vs Nepali priest).
The latest of such scandals is the issue of Nepal’s Army Chief. Rakesh Sood (I wonder if he is really an ambassador because he shamelessly breaches all diplomatic etiquette) forced the President, Nepali Congress and the UML to side with the sacked Army Chief. He is understood to have threatened Nepal with Indian military intervention if the sacked Army Chief is not restored to his position. This is a serious question. Some may wonder why Nepali leaders have to obey everything their Indian bosses tell them. It is a cancer. It is a clear symptom of psychological servitude. But Indian authorities create practical difficulties for which it is difficult to blame them directly. For example, the Nepalis, who defied former King Gyanendra’s 19-day curfew rule, did also defy the call of Indian rulers to accept Gyanendra’s offer for compromised government. This angered the Indian authorities. As soon as the Nepalis ended the direct royal regime, oil from India was stopped. The oil crisis, worsened by Nepal’s crime-minded oil officials and dealers, continued until the 10-April Constituent Assembly poll in 2008.
Before and after the poll, Indian extremist Hindu parties have been instigating Nepali Hindu groups to raise arms against the republican forces. But the central government of India has ignored such deliberate barriers to Nepal’s change process.
In the latest context, the Rayamajhi Probe Commission-blacklisted Army Chief, who even defied government orders several times, deserved the sacking. But there might be some sort of mystery behind the Indian pressure to maintain the sacked Chief.
It is not difficult to understand that an ideologically differing force, taking roots, has really worried India as to its way of regularly benefiting from the familiar political forces. It might have been difficult for India to create an appropriate rapport with Nepal’s Maoists, who say they want to decide many things for Nepal without taking permission from India. When Maoists replace the familiar forces in Nepal or when they dominate the political scenario in the country, it may not be that easy for India to persuade them the same way they used to do. Perhaps because of this possibility, India exercises frequently to maintain its familiar forces in power in Nepal. Any such cause must not be the basis of destroying the neighbor’s sovereignty.
Leave Your Comments