Kathmandu, with clarity

Given its geographical and political proximity to Nepal, it is inevitable that India’s stance on the royal coup in the Himalayan kingdom would have a resonance that goes far beyond South Asia. New Delhi’s refusal to play along with King Gyanendra’s grand ambition to concentrate all power in the palace is in sync with Washington, Brussels and London — a consensus underlined by the calibrated recall of their ambassadors in Kathmandu. In almost identically worded statements, all these entities have demanded that the king reinstate multi-party rule in Nepal, restore civil freedoms and release political prisoners. It is not just the West. Nepal’s citizens — including those based in India — have made fervent appeals to India to support the restoration of democracy in Nepal.

The king today is therefore sandwiched between an intransigent international community, on the one hand, and an increasingly restive nation, on the other. His coup has achieved the impossible task of uniting Nepal’s fractious polity. The six Nepali political parties that have formed a united front for the restoration of democracy in their country have also appealed to India to stop military assistance to Gyanendra. Meanwhile the Maoists are bearing down on Kathmandu by imposing a punishing blockade. Gyanendra, in other words, is in an extremely vulnerable position and should be more sensitive to suggestion than ever before, if only for his own interests — and this is the moment that New Delhi would like to employ. Basically, India would not wish to see the kingdom destablised because it believes that the only gainers from political chaos would be the Maoists. India would therefore want continuity with change in the region with the king rolling back his draconian intervention and allowing multi-party democracy to fill the power vacuum. Any peace talks with the Maoists can only take place after this happens.

The big question is, will King Gyanendra oblige with the urgency that the situation demands? That depends on two factors: the king’s threat perception and India’s success in conveying its concerns on Nepal even while working to achieve its central purpose — the reinstatement of multi-party democracy in the kingdom. In many ways, the two factors are interlinked. King Gyanendra must continue to feel the wrath of the world for the draconian measures he has imposed on his own people and India must do its bit to ensure than he does. At the same time, New Delhi must continue to engage actively with the world and its own neighbours on this vexed issue, both through formal diplomatic channels, as well as through the clear media articulation of its position. For India’s foreign policy makers, this is as challenging as it comes.