Harking back in Kathmandu
In Nepal, a new question: would Gyanendra have been more democratic?
King Gyanendra gave up and handed over power to the political parties when a dozen protesters were killed by the security forces in 2006, but your government has already killed over 50 Madhesis and the repression continues. Who should I think is more of a democrat? You or Gyanendra?” This was the question posed by Hridayesh Tripathi, leader of the United Democratic Madhesi Front, at a recent meeting with the government.
That explains the current trust deficit between the government and the Madhesi leaders. Top Madhesi leaders visited New Delhi recently to apprise India of the agitation and to solicit support for their cause. India was visibly divided on the issue. All that External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj told a critical Opposition in the Rajya Sabha was that, if god willed and the “Madhesis got justice”, things would be easier. She was clearly hinting at her government’s conditions for restoring the supply lines, obstructed for the last 80 days with agitators blocking the Raxaul-Birgunj checkpost, the outlet for 70 per cent supplies from India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Congress chief Sonia Gandhi refrained from meeting Madhesi leaders. Opposition leaders like Sharad Yadav and Sitaram Yechury criticised the government for the “blockade” and its “interference” in the affairs of a “sovereign” country.
The Madhesi leaders’ visit followed that of Kamal Thapa, deputy PM and in charge of foreign affairs. But Thapa failed to convince the Indian establishment that his government was sincere and capable of addressing the issues — more seats for the Terai, proper demarcation of provinces and a more liberal citizenship policy — raised by the Madhesi movement.
Swaraj’s proposal for an all-party Indian parliamentary delegation to Nepal hasn’t come through yet. Congress leader P. Chidambaram, in an article in this paper (‘How to lose a friend and alienate people’, “Across the aisle”, December 6) suggested that the Congress and communist parties have an “international outlook and a special responsibility to initiate a debate on Indo-Nepal relations”, and that a message must go out that India is a good neighbour and a reliable friend, which will abide by the rules of engagement.
Over the last few days, bordering towns like Biratnagar and Birgunj have witnessed demonstrations demanding the return of the monarchy, asking political parties to honour the “understanding reached with King Gyanendra Shah” before he handed over power in April, 2006. There’s speculation that the parties had agreed to retain a constitutional monarchy after Karan Singh, an emissary of then Indian PM Manmohan Singh, had reportedly brokered a deal. This suspicion was endorsed by an official declaration in parliament two weeks later that “henceforth, the members of the royal family will also be brought under the tax net and that even the daughter of the king… will be eligible to ascend the throne”. Karan Singh, however, chose not to say anything on the issue.
The Madhesi agitation is essentially about the confusion over federalism and secularism — two issues still questioned by the majority of people. These issues, and other “progressive” elements of the constitution, were never debated but imposed on the country. Today, with a feared negative growth rate and unrest rapidly growing into anarchy, people are running out of patience, fed- up with the parties that have pushed the country into a mess over the last 10 years. But they are also looking for a “saviour”. The pro-monarchy protests are symptomatic of the fear of growing centrifugal tendencies in Nepal, encouraged by the events that have followed the king’s exit. The majority of Nepalese still believe it was their sole right to decide on the issue, and not the prerogative of a few leaders.
If India is worried about the increasing anti-Indianism in Nepal, its parliamentary delegation, if it comes at all, will need to understand why this has been a growing sentiment since 2006. India’s babus were wrong in reading that the monarchy was responsible for this sentiment, which is now spreading fast in the Terai too. When relations have nosedived in the past, India has sent ambassadors from outside the regular bureaucracy.
Share
