On the brink

India’s entire South Asian neighbourhood is engulfed by political turbulence and violence, with a growing Chinese propensity to fish in troubled waters. To our west, Pakistan and Afghanistan confront a growingly assertive challenge from the Taliban and its allies like the Jaish-e-Mohammed. Prospects of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling into wrong hands give sleepless nights to the international community. Amidst this turbulence, China continues to pour in arms ranging from sophisticated fighter aircraft to frigates to Pakistan’s armed forces.

In the south, the campaign by president Mahinda Rajapakse’s government to decimate the LTTE by its armed forces boosted with Chinese and Pakistani weapons, creates apprehensions in Tamil Nadu that flushed with military victory and with Chinese backing, the Lankan government may decide on a policy of repression of its disaffected Tamil minority. Bangladesh is just recovering from a traumatic revolt by the paramilitary force, the Bangladesh Rifles. Finally, Nepal teeters on the brink of civil war, with prime minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal aka Prachanda resigning after a constitutional confrontation with the country’s  president over the role of Nepal’s army.

It was largely as a result of India’s efforts duly complemented by the US, European Union and the UN that after a decade of civil war, democratic elections were held in Nepal and a new coalition headed by the Maoists was formed.

The main challenge that this government faced as the parliament proceeded to draft a new constitution was on how to integrate Maoist cadres and party apparatchiks into a democratic and pluralistic society. While it was agreed upon in the Peace Agreement of November 2006 that a number of young Maoists who had taken to arms would be integrated into the Nepalese army, the Maoists sought the complete merger of their combatants with the army.

Army chief general Rookmangud Katawal, in turn, ran into a controversy with both the defence minister and the supreme court by recruiting 3000 soldiers. This controversy resulted in a split within the ruling coalition, with the mainstream Communist Party of Nepal (ML) withdrawing support and the president declaring the dismissal of the army chief unconstitutional, though constitutional observers aver  that in doing so, the president exceeded his constitutional powers.

In a larger perspective, there have been lingering doubts about the commitment of the Maoists to parliamentary democracy, despite acknowledgment that Prachanda himself appears sincere on this score. It was noted that when Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai unveiled Maoist proposals for a new constitution, his party called for a presidential structure, which would have effectively disempowered minorities, with a weak parliament and a provision that allows only “anti-feudalist and anti-imperialist forces” to come into the political arena. The Maoists also advocate the establishment of communist style “peoples’ courts” and “reconciliation centres” in the judiciary. The Maoists thus appear to favour a Chinese-style “peoples’ republic” rather than parliamentary democracy.

New Delhi has also noted with growing concern Prachanda’s propensity to cosy up to China. Reliable information that despite his denials Prachanda was negotiating a “Friendship Treaty” with security provisions with China, that would give Chinese nationals access to Nepal’s borders with India, has alarmed India. The “Friendship Treaty”, which was to be concluded during an official visit by Prachanda to China was seen as a step to dilute ties with India. Prachanda had, after all, described Nepal’s 1950 Treaty with India as unequal and demanded that it should be renegotiated — a demand India is ready to discuss. Following serious concerns voiced by India regarding the  “Friendship Treaty”, Prachanda deferred his visit to China.

With India’s political leadership neck-deep in election campaigning, the country  is at present, ill-placed to deal with developments in Nepal. Every effort has to be made to see the hotheads in the Maoist cadres do not upset the democratic apple cart. There should be no doubt that should the Maoists choose, they can again engulf the country in a civil war. But on the positive side, the Maoists and particularly Prachanda are ready for political compromise.

While India is concerned  about the professed Maoist commitment to democracy, it must allow Nepal’s political parties to work out their future course of action themselves and not be seen as intrusive. The agreement to rehabilitate and absorb Maoist cadres into Nepal’s army should be implemented, while ensuring that concerns about the army remaining disciplined and non-political are addressed. The Maoists, in turn, have to be persuaded that the people of Nepal deserve a federal parliamentary democracy and not a Chinese style “peoples’ democracy”.

The writer is a retired diplomat.