M. R. Josse
Former Editor-in-Chief
The Rising Nepal, Kathmandu. Nepal
The concluding sentence of the 1992 edition of William L. Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany” is epigrammatic: “Remembrance of the past helps us to understand the present.”
In that spirit, I have attempted to fathom the whys and wherefores of India’s latest instance of land grab in Nepal by revisiting her post-Independence history.
Remembrance of the Past:
Since a great deal of fiery rhetoric from masses of livid Nepali compatriots has already been directed at exposing India’s blatant act of hegemony – or, ‘dadagiri’ – I choose to traverse through a road less traveled.
My hope is that it may contribute to understanding the present challenges, perhaps even shed some illumination on the future.
Since acquiring independence from British colonial rule on 15 August 1947, India’s territory has steadily expanded through the annexation of Kashmir (1947); of Manipur and Tripura (1949); of South Tibet (1951), now Arunachal Pradesh; of Goa, Daman and Diu (1961); of Nepal’s Kalapani (1962); of Tin Bigha in Bangladesh (1972); and of Sikkim (1975).
That shortlist does not include Junagadh or Hyderabad. As American historian T. Walter Wallbank recalls, in reference to Junagadh, in his “A Short History of India and Pakistan’ [Mentor Books, New York, 1958]:
“Following the Nawab’s accession to Pakistan, disturbances broke out…and the ruler fled to Karachi. On November 11, 1947, Indian troops entered the state and took over the administration, promising an early plebiscite to determine the real wishes of the people.. The plebiscite was duly held However the great majority voted for union with India.
This is how Wall bank recalls Hyderabad’s incorporation into India:
“In the spring of 1947, the Nizam toyed with the idea of Hyderabad securing recognition from Great Britain as an independent dominion. This was ruled out by the Labor government…In June 1947, the Nizam stated for the time being his government would not accede either to India or Pakistan. India argued that the facts of geography demanded Hyderabad’s incorporation into the Indian Union. India could not countenance an independent state located as Hyderabad was in the very center of its territory.” This is how the Indian government explained her stance, “an issue like this involving the defense of India, the integrity of her territory, the peace and security of the country… could not be allowed to be solved by mere legalistic claims of doubtful validity.”
The matter was settled after Indian troops entered Hyderabad to conduct ‘police action’, following an anti-Nizam agitation orchestrated behind-the-scenes from outside – a form to be replicated in Sikkim decades later. Hyderabad’s formal accession occurred on 18 September 1948.
The crux is that while the wishes of the Nawab of Junagadh, for accession to Pakistan, and that of the Nizam of Hyderabad, for independent status, were not considered valid by India, the desire of the Maharaja of Kashmir, for joining India, was considered perfectly kosher, though that hardly coincided with the aspirations of the majority of Kashmir’s population!
Recall that while the Nawab and the Nizam were Muslim sovereigns ruling over Hindu majority states, the Maharaja of Kashmir was a Hindu, governing a state with a pre-dominantly Muslim population. Remember, too, that, as per the terms of the Partition Plan, each princely state of undivided India had «three choices: it could join with Pakistan, enter the Indian Union, or remain unattached to either and endeavor to go it alone.”
“Once British power had been removed from India, however, it was inevitable that the states would have to join one or the other government.” The cardinal point is that all arguments based on geography, economics, and the will of the people, were brushed aside by India in the case of Kashmir.
Goa, Macau, Hong Kong, etc
We come, now, to India’s military takeover in December 1961 of the Portuguese colony of Goa and the enclaves of Daman and Diu – a two-day operation ending 451 years of rule by Lisbon, subsequently hailed as the “Liberation of Goa.”
Compare this with Macau’s return to China on 20 December 1999, following a 12-year period of transition, ending 442 years of Portuguese rule – without resort to force by China.
The Goa scenario also bears comparison with the return of Hong Kong to China – formalized on midnight of 1 July 1997, an act that ended 156 years of British colonial rule. As with Macau, this was not only a negotiated settlement but one that came in the wake of the successful Sino-British negotiations culminating on 19 December 1984, providing a grace period of 15 years before the actual transfer of sovereignty from London to Beijing took effect.
No less edifying is India’s stance vis-&-vis some key global issues. They were widely perceived as being supportive or invasions and armed interventions of sovereign states.
Thus, India was “ambivalent and generally supportive” of the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary. (Vide. J.N. Dixiet’s “Across Borders ). She herself militarily intervened in Sri Lanka in 1987; she continued for years justifying the 1970 Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
We also have the instance of I.K. Gujral, Indian foreign minister, backing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s August 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Instead of “expressing sympathy for the Kuwaitis who had been subjected to invasion he dashed to Baghdad…where he managed to be photographed …warmly embracing Saddam Hussein.”
India’s carefully crafted interventionist role in the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 is too deeply etched in the Nepali mind to bear repetition here.
Closer home – in Sikkim – Delhi’s hand in instigating the 1973-1975 anti-Chogyal movement, culminating in her absorbing Sikkim, could benefit from fresh recall. As Nari Rustomji recounts [Sikkim: A Himalayan Tragedy, (Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd, India, 1987)]: Apart from “the role played by the Government of India in maneuvering the political parties in Sikkim and sustaining the anti-ruler sentiment” », it is notable that the 1975 annexation of Sikkim took place “under the shield of a heavy Indian presence”, which “gave the impression, within and outside Sikkim, that India’s was the hidden hand.” Notably, assorted acts of ‘dadagiri’ against Nepal have occurred in myriad forms and times.
That includes the imposition in 1989 of a 15 month-long blockade of all but two land transit routes between Nepal and India, causing enormous hardship – triggered by Nepal importing a few anti-aircraft guns, patently defensive weapons to safeguard her sovereign skies.
More recently, India’s open support, including in providing safe haven, military training and arms, to Nepali Maoists and the showering of political blessings to a bevy of political dissidents to topple the Monarchy, are all too fresh to warrant retelling.
Modi’s India:
No wonder, then, that Nepalese believe that the pat assumption in Indian power circles has been, and continues to be, that India can get away with anything in Nepal: it had been so in Pandit Nehru’s India, in Indira Gandhi’s India, in Rajiv Gandhi’s India, and continues, perhaps even more so, in Prime Minister Nárendra Modi’s India.
Even those who had naively assumed that a saffron-clad India, led by the Hindu’ BJP party, whose lineage goes back to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), would cast off the ‘dadagiri’ mantle, began shedding such innocent expectations, especially after India’s five month-plus blockade against a Nepal undergoing the trauma of the Great Earthquake of April 2015. All this, because Nepal refused to accept Indian dictation vis-à-vis her Constitution!
Bearing in mind that the BJP is widely regarded as RSS’s progeny, it is not difficult to understand laments such as Kapil Komireddi’s, (The Guardian, 21 May 2019) which reads in part: “In the world’s largest secular democracy, Muslims have been lynched by mobs since Modi came to office for such offenses as eating beef, dating Hindus, and refusing to vacate their seats to Hindu commuters on crowded trains.
Since being re-elected in May 2019, with a much bigger majority than in 2014, Modi’s government has claimed a mandate to fulfill long-standing Hindu nationalists» demands to further marginalize minorities.
Last August, 2019, his government set off a firestorm of protest when it revoked Article 370 of the Indian constitution that, for decades, afforded Jammu and Kashmir with substantial autonomy over its affairs.
The BJP government has, since, pushed ahead with such controversial legislation as the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens, the fuse that triggered Hindu-Muslim riots causing Delhi to burn for days – when the American president was visiting – and resulting in 50 fatalities.
The world has taken disturbing note of the rise of authoritarianism, intolerance, cult-worship and, even, the deification of Modi. What is disturbing, and revealing, is that the once lively, watchdog Indian media has begun to resemble the lapdog press which prevailed in 1975-77, during Indira Gandhi’s draconian ‘national emergency’ regime.
Connecting the Dots:
Admittedly, the events/developments detailed in the last few paragraphs are basically India’s own business. They seem, however, to be linked to New Delhi’s assiduous attempts to divert attention from its current woes, embarking on foreign interventionist adventures – including in Nepal – and resorting to blatant jingoism to deflect the public’s attention from its inept handling of current domestic challenges, particularly those posed by Covid-19.
As clearly evident to anyone not a dotard, Modi’s government ignored, for too long, all sensible parameters of proper planning and implementation, then plunged unto a policy path that appears more ad hoc and confused than carefully thought-through. The up shot?
That is starkly summarised in an AP news story headlined in The Rising Nepal yesterday, thus: “India overtakes China in number of cases”. [For India the official figure on Saturday was 85,940 Covid-19 cases; China has reported 82,941cases.]
Apart from those tell-tale statistics, there are the heart-wrenching daily scenes on our TV screens, depicting thousands upon thousands of hungry, bone-tired migrant workers slowly trudging or bicycling from myriad cities through roads towards their native villages, hundreds and hundreds of miles away. Many of them are seen carrying children, dragging luggage or balancing loads on their heads.
Obviously, the Indian government ardently desires that such visuals be replaced by those projecting a vigorous India, undaunted and heroic, determinedly taking on all adversaries, principally China and Pakistan.
It is in this dire pandemic setting that India’s military engages with their Chinese counterparts in Ladakh (5-6 May) and Nathu-La in Sikkim (9 May), while there continues to be a constant stream of jingoistic braggadocio on TV channels directed against China and Pakistan.
One pet theme: China and Pakistan are in cahoots; India must therefore be prepared for a two-front war. Another: an assertive reminder to China that today’s India is not the India of 1962!
India’s acquisition, soon, of four French Rafale fighter. aircraft is trumpeted to the high heavens, along with the claim that it would “give an edge to India” over China and Pakistan.
Nepal now enters the picture with Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh inaugurating (8 May) a road through Nepal; territory connecting to China, with a view to occupying all strategic tri-junction areas, including Lipulekh.
The delivery of urgent medical supplies from China, recently transported to Kathmandu in a PLAAF aircraft, is slanted in the Indian media to ‘prove’ the existence of an anti-India, Nepal-China collusion plot! And, to cap it all, we have the Indian Army Chief, Gen. Naravane speculating publicly the other day that Nepal “might have raised the issues at the behest of someone else” – clearly implicating China.
Paeans to the Indian Army’s success in her operations in Kashmir against “terrorists’, with no independent confirmation, are also noteworthy. Even more significant are a regular stream of chauvinist, gung-ho TV commentaries blasting Beijing for creating and spreading the Covid-19 virus, often quoting the Trump administration’s unproven allegations in what is clearly an effort to sidle up to the United States.
Conclusion:
I say to our policy pundits: recognize that ‘Lipulekh’ is merely the symptom of the Indian “disease’ of hegemony.
Nepal’s India policy must recognize this.
To India: I urge her to mull erstwhile USSR’s sorry fate, when it over-extended and went bust competing with America.
20 May, 2022.
##############################
# Text courtesy: Geopolitically Speaking by M. R. Josse. Publisher-Periwinkle Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. Dilli Bazar Kathmandu, Nepal.
Published : September 2020:
Thanks the publisher and the author of the book: Ed. Upadhyaya.