India should ignore criticism of its Nepal policy, continue what it’s doing
News analysis: India should ignore criticism of its Nepal policy, continue what it’s doing
But what should have been an occasion for universal celebration in Nepal has turned into a nightmare of violent agitation, for which the Nepali Congress, CPN(UML), and the Maoists must take the blame for ramming through a flawed document by the tyranny of majority and reneging on promises in writing to the marginalized, Madhesis, Janajatis and Dalits.
The result is a Terai in turmoil. Agitation and police/army response has claimed more than 40 lives.
Some 60,000 troops are deployed in the Terai, more than half the strength of the Nepal army, more than ever deployed against the insurgency.
This isn’t the first time Terai has seen massive protests, especially by Madhesis. Agitations in 2007 and 2008 led to a written agreement signed on February 28, 2008, which guaranteed an autonomous Madhes, representation in security forces and state organs proportionate to their population. There was no ambiguity in the commitment. I was witness to the discussions and the final draft.
This, and the gerrymandering of the boundaries of the seven states, to reduce Madhesis and Tharus to a minority in 12 of the 20 existing Terai districts, are at the centre of the anger in the plains. They see a traditionally dominating Bahun-Chhetri combine of the mid-hills and the Himal hills trying to ensure their dominance cloaked in constitutionalism. Everyone in Nepal knows about the vested interests of a
few leaders who won’t let go of their “pocket” constituencies in Jhapa, Sunsari, and Morang in east Terai, and Kanchanpur and Kailali in the west.
Although the present – and future – rulers are telling their people, and India, that these concerns will be met through amendments, the distrust on the other side is that the proportional principle will be railroaded in the fine print of laws, since the constitution and future laws enacted by parliament will be subject to majority voting based on the flawed system. The slightly-level playing field for smaller parties has been eroded with proportional representation in the mixed system reduced from 58% to 45%.
Criticisms of India’s policy, in Nepal and here, are misplaced. India should ignore the fulminations of armchair analysts, parachute pundits, and continue what it is doing: Point out to Nepal’s leaders that we’re concerned solely because instability in Nepal directly affects us across an open border. That an end to the violence must take place through a dialogue with the Madhesis, Janjatis and the Dalits. We should continue engaging with leaders on both sides, making our concerns clear, underlining that while we hold Nepali sovereignty paramount, we have legitimate concerns based on our unique relationship.
We could remind them that it was the same leaders behind whom India stood rock steady when they fought for democracy, sought support and got it in full measure. We haven’t, even in our cold statements pointing out our unhappiness at the shape the constitution has taken, hinted at asking Nepali leaders to agree with us as quid pro quo for our aid, the billion dollar credit, and other projects.
Nor are we interested in micro-managing the peace process. The canard about the ‘seven’ specific demands for amendments has been nailed – it was a list compiled by some Madhesis sent to Delhi, and reported as an Indian proposal by a scoop-hungry reporter.
This isn’t the time to give in to the ‘teach-Nepal-a-lesson’ hardliners. What is needed is a calibrated response, mindful of Nepal’s dignity but firm in our resolve to protect our national interest. We have leverages in plenty, but must use carrot and stick judiciously. We should strengthen voices in Nepal who stand for a truly inclusive constitution. The ‘China’ card will doubtless be played by those stubborn in the pursuit of their interests, and may test our diplomacy, but we should ignore the pinpricks of anti-Indian rhetoric that’s sure to come up in Kathmandu.
PM Sushil Koirala has cancelled his trip to New York and has gone to meet Madhesi leader Mahant Thakur. Former PM and Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai has admitted mistakes. Perhaps the agitation and India’s principled position are bearing fruit? We don’t know yet, but must stay the course.
(The writer was ambassador to Nepal between 2004 and 2008)
Constitutional error
Constitutional error
Nepalese people gather to celebrate the adoption of the country’s new constitution, outside the constituent assembly hall in Kathmandu, Nepal, Sunday, Sept. 20, 2015. (Source: AP photo)
When Nepal was struck by a major earthquake in April this year, there was hope that the scale of the disaster and the urgent task of rehabilitation and reconstruction would persuade its squabbling political parties to reach an early consensus on the long-stalled process of finalising and adopting a new constitution. Impatience among its people and frustration within the international community had sharpened in the aftermath of the earthquake. However, instead of making a genuine effort to forge a broadbased consensus, the major political parties, representing the old high-caste-and-hill elite, saw this as an opportunity to push a flawed constitution through the Constituent Assembly, even reversing some of the already settled features of the interim constitution of 2007 and the 16-point agreement reached among the parties, including the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum on June 9 this year. The Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist, which had all along espoused an inclusive political and social agenda as well as a federal structure that would reflect Nepal’s ethnic, linguistic and cultural diversity, did a neat about-turn. A deeply entrenched and feudal mindset trumped egalitarian ideology. This is now sought to be hidden behind abusive anti-Indian rhetoric. It should have come as no surprise that the blatantly discriminatory features of the constitution should spark widespread opposition and protest. The often brutal and repressive measures visited upon hapless demonstrators have already resulted in over 40 deaths. A vicious cycle of confrontation and violence appears to be taking hold. Instead of dealing with this dangerous situation through an early and sincere dialogue with its own aggrieved citizens, the Nepal government and some of its political leaders are again indulging in ultra-nationalist and anti-India rhetoric, alienating the one friend and well-wisher they have, and one that only recently extended much-needed relief to the people of Nepal who were ravaged by the earthquake.
Nepal’s polity has failed to keep pace with the multiple and far-reaching transitions that have been taking place in the country over the past two decades and more. One, despite the efforts of its traditional hill-based elite, the democratisation process that commenced in the early 1990s and is still ongoing has spread political awareness and led to the assertion of identities and aspirations of the many ethnic and culturally diverse groups that comprise Nepal. The monochromal hill identity imposed upon its diverse people and upheld by a feudal monarchy could no longer be sustained in the more plural politics that is the reality of contemporary Nepal. The acceptance of the principle of federation was an acknowledgement of this plurality, but the new constitution has robbed it of its substance. As long as almost half the country’s population feels it has been shortchanged and subjected to institutionalised discrimination, political stability will continue to elude Nepal.
Two, there is a generational transition in Nepal that the country’s politics continues to neglect. Nepal has a demographic profile that is even younger than India’s. More than 50 per cent of its population is below 25 years of age. There is also a high net migrant rate of 61 per 1,000 of the population, reflecting the limited job opportunities available in the country. It is estimated that six to eight million Nepali nationals live and work in cities across India alone. Unlike in the past, the new generation of Nepalis are literate, have been exposed to external influences and, like India’s own youth, are aspirational and forward-looking. This includes bright young women who continue to chafe under the feudal patriarchal attitudes that still define the political elite. Consider the provisions relating to citizenship in the constitution: Children of a Nepali male marrying a foreigner will enjoy citizenship rights, but not those of a Nepali woman marrying a foreigner. The constitution perpetuates old prejudices and mindsets, instead of helping to create a political and social environment able to generate the opportunities its younger generation deserves. It is this generation that can transform Nepal’s prospects and make it one of South Asia’s most affluent countries.
Three, there is a significant change in Nepal’s external environment that its political dispensation has failed to leverage to the country’s advantage. Nepal, until recently, was a relatively isolated country, its high mountains to the north and thick forests to the south engendering a sense of mistrust, even hostility, to outsiders. Prithvi Narayan Shah, the famous king who united Nepal, is reputed to have described his country as a “yam between two rocks”, the two rocks being India and China. That sense of vulnerability, and of being under siege, still drives much of Nepal’s political behaviour. But Nepal’s proximity to the two fastest-growing and continental-size economies of the world should be seen as an asset few developing countries enjoy. India, in particular, represents a huge opportunity, rather than a threat, should its leaders begin to see their southern neighbour in a different light. One frequently hears how Nepal has suffered from having an open border with India, but whenever movement across this border has been disrupted, as one hears is becoming the case again due to violence in the Terai, it is the people of Nepal who suffer. It is the open border that allowed a large number of Nepali citizens to escape violence and economic deprivation during the decade of Maoist insurgency and seek shelter in India. The tourism and hotel industries in Nepal benefit from the several thousand Indians who travel there for leisure or pilgrimage. This dense network of relations between the two countries does not square with the yam complex, which still colours our neighbour’s perception of India.
India is right to be concerned about the spillover effect of political instability and violence across the border in Nepal. But the current crisis also exposes a continuing weakness in India’s neighbourhood policy: An attention deficit that is only episodically shaken when a crisis erupts. It also appears that there may have been mixed political messages conveyed to the Nepali side, which may have underestimated India’s reaction. Both these aspects need to be addressed in order to avoid similar crises in the future.
The writer, a former foreign secretary, was India’s ambassador to Nepal, 2002-04.
http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/constitutional-error/
Blood of Yadukuha’s martyrs
Blood of Yadukuha’s martyrsC K LAL Mahottari is at the bottom of the list of districts in terms Human Development Index. Neighboring Dhanusha is a better performer, though barely so. In any case, averages hide a lot of disparities. Despite its lower status, Mahottari boasts of small towns like Bardibas, Gaushala and Matihani that may not measure up to district capital Jaleshwar, but are bazaars of distinction in their own right. However, Janakpur has overshadowed every other settlement in the district. Even Yadukuha, a sprawling settlement bang at the center of Dhanusha barely gets attention in political, social, cultural, religious or commercial discourse these days. It takes over an hour to cover a distance of barely 16 kilometers through the earthen road that connects Yadukuha to the district headquarters. Few government officials or NGO-entrepreneurs grace the place with their visit. Donors and INGOs prefer settlements along the highway or villages near the airport during their field visits. It is such a pity because Yadukuha is not just a place but also the name of an ideal that has somehow begun to lose its potency. For an entire generation of students in the 1970s, Yadukuha was a codeword for fierce resistance, ceaseless struggle and spirit of sacrifice. There were several reasons behind its popularity. The village is known as Shahid Nagar (Martyr Town) for warriors that laid down their lives for the cause of democracy, socialism and nationality.
During the first parliamentary elections in the country, BP Koirala had proposed to field a Yadav from this constituency. The chosen one declined on the ground that such a selection smacked of communalism. It was a Yadav-dominated constituency and the idealist politico wanted to ensure the victory of his idol Saroj Koirala to prove that the support base of Nepali Congress went beyond exigencies of caste calculations. No NC leader showed the moral and political strength to respond in a similar manner and field a Kurmi or a Koeri from Sindhuli or Okhaldhunga. Saroj Koirala won hands down; mesmerized the Parliament with his political skills; inspired a whole generation of youngsters in the region into joining oppositional politics after the royal-military coup of 1960; and went into self-exile to keep the lamp of democratic struggle burning. He was murdered on Indian soil, allegedly on the orders of the then Anchaladhis (Zonal Commissioner) by Nepali security personnel in mufti. Whether Indian officials were complicit in the crime or not is still unknown. In the early 1970s, security personnel killed two school students—known jointly as Kameshwar-Kusheshwar now—for their political beliefs. After Durganand Jha, these two teens became martyrs to the cause of democracy in the long-drawn fight against Panchayat for freedom. Few remember their names anymore, but they sacrificed their lives for the freedom of every Nepali. Public memory is phenomenally short, but forgetting the martyrdom of Kameshwar-Kusheswar borders on national ungratefulness. During the People’s Movement of 1990, three rural women and two men from Yadukuha once again embraced death and succeeded in firing the imagination of every freedom-loving Nepali in the country and abroad. The People’s Movement had begun to lose momentum—the blood of martyrs from Yadukuha rekindled embers of liberty that finally spread like wildfire and consumed the autocratic Panchayat system. Perhaps there is some truth in the Christian dictum that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. The cathedral that was built in 1990 was called a multiparty democracy. At the height of the Maoist insurgency, 11 policemen lost their lives in the vicinity of Yadukuha. Their sacrifice too did not go in vain. It created tremendous pressure upon political parties, the Maoists, the international community and the civil society to look for a peaceful settlement to the decade-long armed conflict. These security personnel were killed on line of duty and are worthy of respect for exemplary devotion to their profession.
There must be something in the earth, water, and air of Yadukuha that makes it produce persons of extraordinary courage, conviction and commitment to democracy and social justice. The state and society, however, has been less than generous in acknowledging the contributions of this village to the national life. The reason may lie in the socio-cultural degeneration brought about by the “I, me, my” ideology. Rather than martyrdom, “martyr syndrome” and “martyr complex” are prevailing ideas of our times. A martyr is a person who is put to death, or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause. A martyr to the cause of democracy, human rights, or social justice is a later addition. The idea of martyrdom is not natural to Hinduism where an act of sacrifice implies balidan—donation of someone else’s life, be that of a goat, a rooster, a buffalo, a pig, a duck, or any such living being. Human sacrifice (narbali) has passed into history. Breaking of coconut is perhaps a symbolic ritual that memorializes the archaic practice. In South Asia, valiant Sikhs borrowed the idea of martyrdom from Islam and took it to great heights. The trend got further fillip during anti-British struggles. The idea of struggle and sacrifice for liberty, equality and fraternity came to Nepal via India. Terminology may be different, but martyr syndrome is a manipulative tactic that must have been around for ages. Some people use their self-sacrifice, real or imagined, to manipulate people around them. They expect a reward, often far in excess of their suffering, as they want to milk the misery of their past for present and future personal benefits. Politicos who keep harping about their time in jail, exile or underground and expect to be nominated to some office of profit are dime a dozen in Kathmandu. The UML is particularly rich in cadres with martyr syndrome. Martyr complex, sometimes associated with the term victim complex, is a strange sort of psychological state that makes a person choose a life of suffering, prosecution and possible death. Their goals may or may not be clear, but such people willingly endure hardships of all kinds. The Maoist leadership has skillfully identified, trained and manipulated the burning desire of being a martyr for his/her own among a section of disillusioned youngsters. The martyrs of the past have enriched us all—they died to ensure a better life for generations to come. Struggles of the future, however, would have to be peaceful for more impact. The hadith (narrative) said to have originated from the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that “the ink of a scholar is more holy than the blood of a martyr” will then become even more relevant. The ideas that martyrs held dear would nevertheless continue to inspire people for generations to come. source::http://theweek.myrepublica.com/details.php?news_id=25584 |
*
*
*
*
Faguwa (Holi) Celebration
Madhesi - United We Stand 
Recent Comments