Dr. Manzoor Ahmad Naazer,
Assistant Professor, Department of Politics & International Relations,
International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan
Post Doc Research Fellow,
Department of Global Studies,
University of North Carolina, Wilmington.
3.6 India’s Role in Bringing down the Monarchy:
India changed its policy towards Nepal whenever its interests or the situation suited so.
Its policy towards the erstwhile institution of monarchy in Kathmandu is worth citing.
In 2002, India announced that it wanted preservation of constitutional monarchy with introduction of multiparty democracy as ‘two pillars of stability’ in Nepal and both of them should remain strong.
Within three years, India changed its policy with regard to preservation of constitutional monarchy whose existence by now New Delhi deemed detrimental to its interests.
After 2005, as the Nepalese king took over the executive power to the dismay of New Delhi, India supported Maoists more proactively and played a key role in cultivating an alliance of Nepalese insurgents and democratic forces to topple royal rule.
India was also unhappy with Nepalese king on his proposal to admit China as a member of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) at a time when Afghanistan was admitted to the organization in 2005.
Nepalese royalists attributed it as one of the causes of Indian decision to bring an end to the monarchy.
Moreover, the refusal on the part of the king to accept Indian ‘road map’ to address the problem annoyed New Delhi which in turn brought Maoists and seven political parties’ alliance together to accept a 12-point agreement in November 2005.
It was signed in New Delhi which shows the extent of India’s role in it and influence on the parties to the agreement.
This agreement played a crucial role in bringing down the monarchy in Kathmandu.
Earlier, Maoists, who had started the so called ‘people’s war’ on the name of anti-Indianism and Nepali nationalism, had become soft towards India.
Eventually, they became less vocal on India’s influence and even did not object to its support for counter–insurgency campaign in Nepal.
Instead they objected to the presence of, and demanded withdrawal of, the US advisors who were supporting Nepalese government.
Reportedly, New Delhi had used its links with Maoists to demand withdrawal of US advisors in order to decrease American influence in Nepalese affairs and to increase its own.
There were complex motives behind Indian behavior towards Maoists insurgency in Nepal.
New Delhi kept its ties with Maoists in order to create insecurity in the country and then provided assistance to Nepalese government to ensure perpetuation of its dependence on Indian security means.
Rabindra Mishra claimed that India used Maoists to ‘keep the Nepali state in a constant state of fear in an effort to extract continued subservience.’
Puskar Gautam, a Nepalese commentator and former Maoist commander once stated that New Delhi had expected too much from Nepalese communists and democratic forces because of its past support to them.
Once its expectations were not met after 1990, it started using the Maoists ‘as a bargaining tool.’
Another reason was that India wanted to keep Nepalese rulers insecure in order to force them to acquiesce to Indian demands for their survival. Mainly the ‘most controversial’ Indo-Nepalese agreements were concluded by insecure rulers in Kathmandu who were ‘threatened by externally backed opposition.’
3.7 India’s Suspected Role in Palace Massacres:
Some elements in Nepal suspected that India’s intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) was responsible for murder of king Birendra and his family on 1 June 2001.
Reportedly, it was done in order to bring deceased king’s younger brother Gyanendra as a new monarch.
Leadership of the Nepal Communist Party (Maoists) strongly held this view and expressed it in a letter published in a newspaper.
Baburam Bhattarai held the view that the deceased king wanted to preserve national independence and sovereignty and thus was killed by RAW and ‘unnamed “imperialist forces”’ in order to ‘replace a patriotic king with one who would do India’s bidding.’
Those who held endorsed this view had little hope for survival of monarchy in Nepal.
Later on, Chakra Prasad Bastola, a former foreign minister of Nepal, Gen Bibek Shah, a former aide of deceased king Birendra and D. R. Prasai, an MP also held Indian RAW responsible for the massacre.
In fact, the details of the incident were quite suspicious indicating involvement of secret hands.
What one can infer from the above discussion is that India was not happy with the deceased king and thus, removed him in order to bring his brother into power hoping that he would pursue pro-India policies.
Thus, in 2002, India declared its support for preservation of constitutional monarchy with introduction of multiparty democracy as ‘two pillars of stability’ in Nepal.
However, the policies of the new king, as discussed earlier, also infuriated India which forced the latter to get rid of Nepalese monarchy.
History is replete with examples that the Nepalese monarchs strove to preserve country’s independence, security and national interests that conflicted with Indian policy and agenda.
India deemed it necessary to close this chapter once for all.
It cultivated an alliance with Maoists to accomplish its desired objectives.
Once monarchy was done away, Maoists became part of the interim government and after the election also formed their own government led by prime minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal in 2008.
3.5 India Intervention after adoption of New Nepalese Constitution:
India did not stop twisting Nepalese arms even after democratic era ushered in the country.
It continued the policy of interfering in Nepalese internal affairs to the dismay of the people and leaders in the small Himalayan state.
It suggests that support for democracy had been just a guise and India needed one excuse or another to intervene and influence rulers in Kathmandu.
In the recent past, some provisions in the new constitution of Nepal gave India an excuse to flex its muscle again.
Nepal adopted a new constitution on 20 September 2015, which provided for a federal state.
However, some ethnic groups such as Madheshis and Tharus who comprise about 70 per cent of Tarai population that mainly live in areas bordering with India, felt that they were not fairly represented and were sidelined in the process.
Their dissatisfaction and resentment led to agitation and unrest that badly hit normal life in the region.
Reportedly Madheshis and Tharus constitute 40 per cent of country’s overall population and the former have ethnic ties with India that possibly forced New Delhi to interfere on the issue. India initially pressed Nepal for a delay in passing of the constitution and demanded to make it broad based after discussions with the groups opposing it. India officially took this position on the ground that disorder and violence in areas near to its border could spill over into its own territory.
Indian government led by Prime Minister Narendara Modi probably took the decision due to its domestic political considerations particularly to win people’s support in the then upcoming state elections in ‘politically crucial state of Bihar which adjoins Nepal.’
Thus, India demanded Nepal to make seven amendments in its new constitution which Kathmandu regarded as infringement on its sovereignty.
Meanwhile, some ‘armed fissiparous groups’ such as Madheshi Janadhikar Forum, the Nepal Defence Army, the Terai Cobra and others have already started operating against Nepalese government from Indian states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, both bordering Nepal.
In September 2015, India imposed fuel and economic blockade on Kathmandu which lasted for several months and paralyzed normal life in Nepal.
KP Sharma Oli, the then prime minister of Nepal, declared that the blockade was ‘worse than the wartime situation.’
It had created a ‘humanitarian crises’ as India had also blocked lifesaving medicines.
Hospitals ran out of medicines and blood bags for emergency and it also caused fuel shortages so that which people were unable to cook food.
He demanded India to lift the undeclared blockade while India had denied the news of imposition of blockade.
Oli had also announced his readiness to amend the constitution, to redraw provincial boundaries in order to address the concerns of agitating groups.
Reportedly, the blockade had risked the lives of three million children under the age of five to death because of food, fuel and medicine shortages.
Kanak Mani Dixit, a Nepali scholar, claimed that India’s economic and fuel blockade against Kathmandu had stemmed from former’s attempts to steer country’s new constitution to be more ‘friendly towards India.’
He acknowledged that new constitution could not satisfy a few out of overall 120 ethnic groups, particularly Madheshis, an ethnic minority who live on border areas and often marry Indians. Madheshis felt targeted by the new constitution which refuses to grant full citizenship rights to children of Nepalese married to foreigners.
However, their grievances could be addressed domestically as constitution was ‘very flexible and amendable.’
Any differences over constitutional issues could be addressed within Nepal and outside powers did not need to interfere in Nepalese domestic affairs.
Such matters were not ‘for any outside power to dictate,’ he added.
The then Nepalese foreign minister Prakash Sharan Mahat stated that concerns and aspirations of Madheshis were the internal matter of Nepal whose government was in the process to complete necessary constitutional amendments in next few months.
But outside powers did not need to interfere on this issue. However, India kept on giving Nepal ‘advice’ to ‘carry all sections of the population along’ in the constitution making process.
India has generally interfered with the internal affairs of Nepal on one pretext or another throughout its history.
Mostly, it tried to cover its intentions under the veil of noble ideals. Sometimes, its role was covert.
A Nepalese scholar explained this role and its implications: Indian covert role in Nepalese affairs was ‘characterized by a Machiavellian pursuit of self-interest, regardless of its effect on Nepal’s future or impact on India’s own image. This is probably why Delhi seems little bothered by inconsistency and duplicity in its dealings with Nepal.’
Conclusion:
Both India and Nepal share a common religion, history, culture, and language and both countries are highly integrated economically.
Their citizens work in each other country while many Nepalese serve in Indian security forces.
Good relations between the two states would benefit all.
Nepal could benefit from the more resourceful and powerful neighbour and its higher level of economic and industrial development.
India could contribute significantly in helping to ensuring peace, stability, progress and prosperity of Nepal.
India could provide its smaller and less resourceful neighbour what it expected and demanded from the Western developed nations at different global political and economic forums. India could also negate the imperatives of power politics and demonstrate before the world the practical exercise of its cherished idealism.
Yet, India pursued Machiavellian realism in its relations with its smaller neighbor.
New Delhi overtly or covertly destabilized the successive governments in Kathmandu by supporting violent political movements, revolts, insurgencies, and terrorism for advancing its dubious goals. India had diverse motives behind such actions.
Generally, it tempted to extract numerous sorts of concessions from various political actors, either through exploiting the weaknesses of rulers in Kathmandu or giving them assurance against the rebels or providing assistance to mutineers or political dissidents under the understanding that they would serve Indian interests once they come into power.
Occasionally, it tried to cover its evil goals under the guise of noble cause such as support of democracy.
Sometimes, its behavior was characterized by duplicity as it pretended to support both the government and opposition or rebel groups to extract maximum benefits from both sides or to keep both sides under pressure to yield to its demands.
At times, New Delhi used the opposition groups to weaken the rulers in Kathmandu and then, forced them to conclude treaties detrimental to independence, sovereign equality, security and national interests of Nepal.
On three occasions, India supported the rebels for regime change in Nepal, when it believed that existence of a ruler or a system was detrimental to its interests.
Once the indebted rebels or democratic groups came to power, India wasted no time in demanding the reward for its support.
New Delhi was, thus, able to impose upon Kathmandu several unequal treaties covering wide range of issues including military, strategic, political, economic, trade and transit.
India’s persistent interference in Nepalese internal affairs and imposition of unfair and unequal treaties created widespread hatred and resentment in the country.
New Delhi needs to change its policy and course of action towards its neighbors particularly Nepal.
India must heed to the Nepalese demands and appreciate latter’s concerns and grievances.
It should stop harboring terrorism and cultivating insurgencies for its infamous designs covered under the veil of noble cause.
Most importantly, New Delhi must respect independence, national identity and sovereign equality of Nepal and strictly adhere to its cherished principles of mutual respect and non-intervention in internal affairs of other states.
# Concluded.