The absence of political stability and public faith in Nepal’s political leadership has taken a toll on the state. The debate on whether Nepal will become a failed state has subsided for the moment, but that is largely because of the hope that Nepal’s people possess and the goodwill the Himalayan nation enjoys. However, people are losing that hope as politicians, responsible for institutionalising Nepal’s political changes through a constitution, continue to fail. The deadline, extended for the third time — asking the Constitutional Political Dialogue and Consensus Committee to achieve consensus on the contentious issues — lapsed on Friday.
Meanwhile, a new fear has gripped the country over reports of a letter that the Indian government sent to Nepal on September 24, warning that the presence of Indian Mujahideen and al-Qaeda in Kathmandu and around may lead to assassinations of Nepali politicians, abductions of Indian diplomats and the hijacking of an Indian or Nepali aircraft. The letter also reportedly asks for enhanced security for Indian diplomats, the embassy in Kathmandu, the consulate in Birgunj and a camp office in Biratnagar.
Is it a routine review of the threat perception by India, or is there credible information on the particular threat? The letter, which found its way into a national daily, has sent across a wave of fear, especially in government circles. Security agencies have been reviewing the situation, with security at only the international airport visibly tightened. But this involves larger issues, such as whether expected dignitaries will now be advised by their respective security agencies to undertake the visit or not.
The hijacking of the New Delhi-bound IC 814 on Christmas Eve in 1999 led to the suspension of Indian air services for a few years. Operations were resumed only after Delhi was convinced of enhanced security measures in Nepal. But the years that followed saw more political turmoil and instability, with a direct impact on the general law and order situation, as well as on state authority. The credibility of the information in the “letter” from the Indian government has also been questioned on social media, with some well-known figures even questioning the motive. There is some background to these questions, as India’s earlier reports, mainly from its intelligence outfits, which found their way to the Nepali media, had projected the country as a bastion of the ISI. But when the state is weak and the atmosphere charged with mutual suspicion among politicians, ignoring any “warning”, especially on terrorism, can only be at the government’s peril. That is the predicament Prime Minister Sushil Koirala and his government face today. Moreover, India’s open involvement in Nepal’s politics — especially in the long period of transition — is often linked to the resultant chaos and the question of accountability.
With the Maoist insurgency at its peak, June 2001 saw the massacre of King Birendra and his family. Insiders’ accounts now reveal India’s external intelligence agency established contact with the Maoist leadership — Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai — exactly a year after that palace event. In November 2005, India “mediated” in bringing the Maoists and seven parties together on the anti-monarchy platform. The movement for democracy in 2006 forced King Gyanendra to hand power back to the parties, with an agreement that the Constituent Assembly would draft a new constitution. But before that, the parties removed the monarchy and declared Nepal a secular and federal republic, without any direct role for the people. Eight years later, the way these changes were announced and the continuing failure on the constitution have discredited the leaders and their parties.
Such a political situation, coupled with the reported threat to Nepali politicians and Indian diplomats, will not leave the public and the government any room for complacency. This has become Nepal’s newest problem.
yubaraj.ghimire@expressindia.com
