Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Natwar Singh8217;s statement on India8217;s Nepal policy is reflective of a simplistic and naive view of politics in that country. It was an extremely superficial way of interpreting the events in Nepal unfolding on a day-to-day basis.
There is a question of propriety also involved, given the fact that Natwar Singh was the foreign minister of India till recently. Without making comments on the motive behind the statement in which he criticized the government and the Prime Minister, I would like to suggest that the entire discourse on Nepal lacks focus and perspective.
India8217;s involvement in the Nepal issue should be seen with three aspects in mind:
8226; The uniqueness of India8217;s relationship with Nepal
8226; The limits of legitimate power of the Indian state
8226; The long-term strategic interest of India vis-8230;-vis Nepal
Moreover, any foreign policy initiative must keep in mind the goals and objectives of India and must be based on a national consensus8212;which we have evolved in the case of Nepal.
It is neither about winning browny points, nor about getting populist. India8217;s efforts so far have yielded results. We have taken a calibrated, nuanced stand on the issue.
For one, Karan Singh8217;s visit to Nepal was not meant to find a final solution to the problem. He broke the ice, and set in motion a process that is now unfolding. And his visit was not an isolated event. It was followed by statements from the foreign secretary and then the PM, nudging the King towards reviving the parliament.
Sending Karan Singh was an eminently reasonable choice. India8217;s approach was to ensure that the popular upsurge does not go waste. At the same, it had to be ensured that the protest doesn8217;t go anarchic.
The government has been successful in appreciating the democratic desires of Nepalese population, ensuring the country8217;s unity and integrity and safeguarding India8217;s strategic interests. Those who are demanding abolition of monarchy are missing the point; they are more romantic than realistic. A constitutional monarchy, hand in hand with parliamentary democracy is equivalent to the presidency. In case of Nepal, it is an institutional answer to the need of continuity in the midst of the dynamics and vagaries in competitive politics of parliamentary democracy.
All what we should ensure is the King doesn8217;t hold on to powers of removing an elected government and usurping the power again.
The seven party alliance SPA must have a realistic approach in tackling the Maoist question. They could be engaged in a dialogue but not before they accept the fundamentals of parliamentary democracy.
The Congress party has historically maintained close relations with political leaders of Nepal. For instance, Indira Gandhi and G P Koirala had an excellent relation. But we must accept the fact that there are limits to the legitimate use of state power in influencing happenings in a neighboring country. Any attempt to arm-twist the King can only be counter productive, as it has been on earlier occasions. We must realize the China-Pakistan angle to the Indo-Nepal relations.
Natwar Singh8217;s statement betrays a lack of understanding about the complexity of the situation. And I will not comment on motives.
As told to Varghese K George
The writer is in-charge, Training Department, AICC
