The Pioneer
December 28, 2012
India must enhance leverage with Kathmandu
Even as the political crisis in Kathmandu threatens to boil over, Nepal’s President Ram Baran Yadav’s ongoing visit to India carries significant diplomatic potential for New Delhi. The five-day long trip that began on December 24, if leveraged effectively, can be a step forward for India as it hopes to regain lost ground in the Himalayan country. That New Delhi has failed to do its part in the past six years during which Nepal has struggled to transform from a monarchy to a democratic republic, after years of suffering a violent Maoist insurgency, is without a doubt. Consequently, other countries in this neighbourhood, particularly China, have since sought to fill the diplomatic space left vacant by India. What makes the failure ironical is the fact that it was New Delhi which helped facilitate the peace process in Nepal back in 2006. Nevertheless, there is no looking away from the reality that the political process in Nepal has been derailed. As many as six Nepalese leaders have walked in and out of a revolving door as Prime Minister in as many years, and none has been able to put in place a power-sharing agreement that satisfies all stakeholders. Even the high hopes of political reconciliation that had emerged after the appointment of Mr Baburam Bhattarai as Prime Minister in August 2011 have long since dissipated. Meanwhile, Nepal’s Constituent Assembly also expired this year, without law-makers finalising a Constitution, despite having worked on the basic charter for four long years. And, as if all that was not enough, in June, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) — Nepal’s largest political party — split right through the middle. But even after hardliners within that party moved out, factionalism still plagues that party, with differences emerging between Maoist chief Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ and Mr Bhattarai, who serves as the party’s vice-president. In fact, bitter political infighting has now become a chronic characteristic of Nepalese politics — one of the primary reasons why Mr Yadav’s efforts to form a national unity Government led by a consensus Prime Minister have failed.
However, while it is true that much of Nepal’s problems are rooted within its political class, New Delhi’s diplomatic failure cannot be ignored. For instance, India has done little to contain Nepal’s growing sentiment against it — the extent of which became most apparent when the firebrand Prachanda, as Prime Minister in 2008, called for the revision of the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship. In the years since then, Indian business investments have also come under threat in Nepal, where India is increasingly perceived as a dominating big brother figure that sympathises more with the elite (including the discredited royal family) than the masses. The Maoists have of course exploited this falsehood but New Delhi also has not cared to fight back with much conviction. Without making it look like it is trying to exert undue influence upon domestic politics in Nepal, India must strive to play a more effective role in a country where it once commanded tremendous goodwill. Investing in infrastructure development projects, such as the hydel power plants that are already in the works, has been a good initiative. But it’s still too little, though not too late.
