| Ravi Adhikari |
Posted
on 12-Jul-01 07:01 PM
DEAR FRIENDS,
THIS IS NOT EXACTLY A COMMENT BUT AN ARTICLE, I WROTE LAST YEAR, A WEEK AHEAD OF MEETING BETWEEN NEPALI AND INDIAN PRIME MINISTERS. I HOPE, MOST OF THE THINGS MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE ARE STILL RELEVENT. IF YOU LIKE IT, I PROMISE I WILL KEEP YOU SENDING MORE. ENJOY,
RAVI
=================================
AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THE NEWS INDIA-TIMES, A NEW YORK-BASED POPULAR SOUTH ASIAN WEEKLY: www.newsindia-times.com, www.desitalk.com
Improved India-Nepal Relations Will Benefit Both
By RAVI ADHIKARI
Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala of Nepal recently completed his official tour of India. But even prior to his visit, there had been a widespread feeling in Kathmandu that Nepal was not going to gain anything from the visit; and now many believe that exactly happened.
Koirala went to India hard on the heels of a protest against the Laxmanpur Dam being built in India only 600 meters away from Banke revenue district in Nepal. According to villagers and environmentalists, this will submerge a number of villages in Nepal. If the Koshi barrage and water distribution dispute have been forgotten, another protest is on against a similar dam by India near Gaur municipality in Rautahat revenue district, a constituency of opposition Nepal Communist Party United Marxist-Leninist leader Madhav Kumar Nepal.
Why are the relations between these two once friendly South Asian nations so tidal, despite their superficial claim that they are so close that they even do not need passport or visa for movement? Many in Nepal, however, see this as the root cause. According to them, a commoner Indian is not `well-educated' by the state, to realize that Nepal is an independent nation. This is happening, despite the fact that Nepal has never been ruled by a foreign power. The Nepali news media suggested to Koirala on the eve of his departure that, "it will be more prudent to make a realistic approach and deal with India on a matter-of-fact basis."
"Nepal cannot wish away India, neither geographically nor economically. Furthermore, one has to also understand that India with its resurgent economy and one of the biggest conventional armed forces, is a significant player internationally. Of course it does not mean that Nepal should be servile in its attitude, but it should also not be adamant. It is hoped that Prime Minister Koirala and his team will be able to deal more pragmatically with Indians and come back with mutually beneficial agreements," Dhana Thapa, a writer with The Independent, a popular weekly, wrote in his column.
According to Indian media reports, the bilateral parleys between Koirala and his Indian counterpart Atal Behari Vajpayee were "especially designed to discuss ongoing security concerns and terrorist activities" against the South Asian giant in the tiny Himalayan kingdom. Also, this talk had to do something with the fallouts from the Christmas Day hijacking of an Indian Airlines Airbus from Kathmandu.
The Dec. 24-31, 1999 saga was the first incident of its kind in Nepal's 50-year aviation history. More than a dozen flag carriers serve Kathmandu's Tribhuvan International Airport. But the Indian government, news media, and the airliner which holds a world record for being hijacked put the blame solely on Nepal.
The hijacking was reportedly plotted in India. This can be said for a number of associates of the five Muslim hijackers, and Indian passport officials are being arrested and prosecuted in various places in India.
That time, the Indian media came all out with allegations against Nepal, supported by more than 100 countries as a peace zone. Some of the accusations made during the hijacking were: One of the hijackers was a Nepali; the only Hindu nation in the world harbors Islamic terrorists; the Kathmandu airport security allowed hijackers to get into the airplane with lethal weapons; ISI uses Nepal against India; and Nepalis are anti-Indian. India officially accuses that the tiny neighbor allows ISI to use its land to work against it.
The accusers, however, forgot that on the very first day of the hijacking the chief executive of the country, the then prime minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, personally called his old pal Vajpayee and apologized for the unpleasant occurrence. The Benaras-educated septuagenarian Bhattarai, who also happens to be a freedom fighter for India, was attacked equally at home and in India, for his moral generosity. Indians questioning his apology, asked, `if everything was all right, why did he apologize?' And the Nepali media saw no reason for Bhattarai's apology since a high-level investigation had just begun. Sometimes one's honesty and sincerity don't pay the expected dividend.
|
| Ravi Adhikari |
Posted
on 12-Jul-01 07:01 PM
DEAR FRIENDS, DEAR FRIENDS,
THIS IS NOT EXACTLY A COMMENT BUT AN ARTICLE, I WROTE LAST YEAR, A WEEK AHEAD OF MEETING BETWEEN NEPALI AND INDIAN PRIME MINISTERS. I HOPE, MOST OF THE THINGS MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE ARE STILL RELEVENT. IF YOU LIKE IT, I PROMISE I WILL KEEP YOU SENDING MORE. ENJOY,
RAVI
=================================
AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THE NEWS INDIA-TIMES, A NEW YORK-BASED POPULAR SOUTH ASIAN WEEKLY: www.newsindia-times.com, www.desitalk.com
Improved India-Nepal Relations Will Benefit Both
By RAVI ADHIKARI
Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala of Nepal recently completed his official tour of India. But even prior to his visit, there had been a widespread feeling in Kathmandu that Nepal was not going to gain anything from the visit; and now many believe that exactly happened.
Koirala went to India hard on the heels of a protest against the Laxmanpur Dam being built in India only 600 meters away from Banke revenue district in Nepal. According to villagers and environmentalists, this will submerge a number of villages in Nepal. If the Koshi barrage and water distribution dispute have been forgotten, another protest is on against a similar dam by India near Gaur municipality in Rautahat revenue district, a constituency of opposition Nepal Communist Party (United Marxist-Leninist) leader Madhav Kumar Nepal.
Why are the relations between these two once friendly South Asian nations so tidal, despite their superficial claim that they are so close that they even do not need passport or visa for movement? Many in Nepal, however, see this as the root cause. According to them, a commoner Indian is not `well-educated' by the state, to realize that Nepal is an independent nation. This is happening, despite the fact that Nepal has never been ruled by a foreign power. The Nepali news media suggested to Koirala on the eve of his departure that, "it will be more prudent to make a realistic approach and deal with India on a matter-of-fact basis."
"Nepal cannot wish away India, neither geographically nor economically. Furthermore, one has to also understand that India with its resurgent economy and one of the biggest conventional armed forces, is a significant player internationally. Of course it does not mean that Nepal should be servile in its attitude, but it should also not be adamant. It is hoped that Prime Minister Koirala and his team will be able to deal more pragmatically with Indians and come back with mutually beneficial agreements," Dhana Thapa, a writer with The Independent, a popular weekly, wrote in his column.
According to Indian media reports, the bilateral parleys between Koirala and his Indian counterpart Atal Behari Vajpayee were "especially designed to discuss ongoing security concerns and terrorist activities" against the South Asian giant in the tiny Himalayan kingdom. Also, this talk had to do something with the fallouts from the Christmas Day hijacking of an Indian Airlines Airbus from Kathmandu.
The Dec. 24-31, 1999 saga was the first incident of its kind in Nepal's 50-year aviation history. More than a dozen flag carriers serve Kathmandu's Tribhuvan International Airport. But the Indian government, news media, and the airliner (which holds a world record for being hijacked) put the blame solely on Nepal.
The hijacking was reportedly plotted in India. This can be said for a number of associates of the five Muslim hijackers, and Indian passport officials are being arrested and prosecuted in various places in India.
That time, the Indian media came all out with allegations against Nepal, supported by more than 100 countries as a peace zone. Some of the accusations made during the hijacking were: One of the hijackers was a Nepali; the only Hindu nation in the world harbors Islamic terrorists; the Kathmandu airport security allowed hijackers to get into the airplane with lethal weapons; ISI uses Nepal against India; and Nepalis are anti-Indian. India officially accuses that the tiny neighbor allows ISI to use its land to work against it.
The accusers, however, forgot that on the very first day of the hijacking the chief executive of the country, the then prime minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, personally called his old pal Vajpayee and apologized for the unpleasant occurrence. The Benaras-educated septuagenarian Bhattarai, who also happens to be a freedom fighter for India, was attacked equally at home and in India, for his moral generosity. Indians questioning his apology, asked, `if everything was all right, why did he apologize?' And the Nepali media saw no reason for Bhattarai's apology since a high-level investigation had just begun. Sometimes one's honesty and sincerity don't pay the expected dividend.
Let's go back to the main issue -- Indo-Nepal relations. According to Indian news reports, New Delhi raised various issues with Koirala, right from ISI activities to combined border and water distribution to trade and transit. This was also a golden opportunity for Nepalis to do the same.
India does press Nepal on ISI, but seems to be unwilling to give any assurances on Nepali Maoist insurgents' collaboration with the Maoist Communist Center or People's War Group -- both active in parts of India. It's not a secret that Nepali Maoist ultras -- partly, if not fully -- operate from India and are being helped by their Indian comrades.
The younger generation in Nepal openly says that Indians never see Nepal as an equal partner, but as a small country that depends on it for everything. Also, this generation doesn't have faith in their own leaders. They argue that the leaders of both ruling and main opposition -- Nepali Congress and United Marxist-Leninists -- parties cannot handle bilateral issues. Also, predominantly Hindus, the generation which used to be religiously tied to India, is fading out pretty fast.
Also changed in recent years is socio-economic scenario of Nepal. The direct link of the East with the West by Mahendra Highway has made the nation more independent. The international airport links it with the entire world. The telephone has brought all 75 revenue districts together. Also, a surge in educational institutions all over the country has dramatically reduced the trend of going to India for higher education.
Yuvaraj Ghimire, a veteran journalist, who knows the South Block and Shital Niwas (the palace in Kathmandu, where Nepal's Foreign Ministry is located) equally, and who accompanied Koirala reported: "Koirala is believed to have put forth his longish agenda, ostensibly as part of his goodwill mission, which among others included the revision of the 1950 Treaty and `entire gamut' of the 50-year-old relationship between the two countries. India's response was supposed to be cryptic, bordering on a warning that it `had no objection to the treaty being reviewed, but Nepal should think about the consequence.'"
In 1987, when Nepal politely asked India to review the unfair trilateral treaty -- signed among India, Nepal and Britain -- the giant cut the lifeline of its landlocked neighbor by slapping months-long economic embargo. No matter how big India might be, it cannot deprive a landlocked country to reach the nearest seaport. New Delhi can't flout the internationally accepted law.
If we go by the Indian theory of `Nepalis working against India,' some reasons for young Nepalis turning their backs to India are the portrayal of Nepal and Nepalis in Indian news media, and the exodus of Indians from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. No surprise, most of the incomers find Nepal as a safe haven to conduct their inherited expertise on criminal activities, right from pickpocketing to smuggling, killing and sectarian violence. The almost 1,800-km long open border has become a breeding ground for criminals.
Last year, when Madhuri Dixit, during a film-cassette promotional tour in Kathmandu, said that Nepal was part of India, she immediately felt the heat and returned to Mumbai cutting her visit short. This is merely an example of how Indians look at a small sovereign nation. Nepali youths are proud of their country for not being ruled by foreigners.
The portrayal of Nepalis in Indian society and Bollywood movies as only thickheaded darvans, or homeguards, stinks. Also that a large number of sex workers in Indian brothels are from Nepal; that Gurkhas are loyal servants. But most recently, portraying their country as a supporter of Islamic terrorists wounded every nationalist Nepali.
As for the Gurkha soldiers' contribution to maintain world peace, they deserve nothing less than the Nobel Prize. They are the most respected and disciplined band of armies fighting without any self-interest, since Nepal was never involved in war against any country. They fought all over without any benefit (directly to their country), from World War I and II to Gulf War and the Bosnian war and conflicts in the Middle East to Africa and East Timor.
On terrorism, India's own record of anti-national activities and ethnic clashes dwarfs what is alleged in Nepal. One can see what happened in Punjab, and what is happening in Kashmir and northeastern states. Dawood Ibrahim, Syed Salahuddin, Anup Chetia, or Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale for that matter, are very much Indians -- not Nepalis.
Let us see a news item by The Press Trust of India, the national news service. The PTI in a Jan. 20 report said: "A high-level meeting chaired by Vajpayee (in Shillong) focused on discussions on stepped-up insurgency aided by the ISI in most of the northeastern states and need for a plan to combat it. Of the seven northeastern states, Nagaland, Tripura, Manipur and Assam have been witnessing a spurt in insurgency with reports of ISI establishing links with some of the major underground outfits."
Also, New Delhi feels that the movement by Indian Nepalis for their due rights is a conspiracy for `Greater Nepal.' In fact, some Indian Nepalis -- larger than Nepal's approximately 23 million population -- live in fear because they have seen what happened against Nepalis in Bhutan and Myanmar (Burma), and what is happening in several northeastern Indian states.
For Nepalis -- both in India and Nepal -- India is nothing but a silent spectator, who, having King Jigme Singye Wangchuk of Bhutan on its lap, is simply watching the ethnic cleansing of their brethren from southern Bhutan. Since 1990, Nepal is burdened with more than 100,000 Bhutanese refugees. India reportedly allowed them to use its territory to enter Nepal but denied to do the same when they wanted to return to Bhutan, their country.
Moreover, if some in Hyderabad or Madras can feel closer to a Pakistani Muslim or a Sri Lankan Tamil, what is wrong in Nepalis' feeling closer to their brethren in West Bengal, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura, Kumaon, Ghadhwal, and Myanmar and Bhutan? Moreover, India should not forget that once, parts of West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh were under Nepal. They should also not forget that the Nepal government supported India -- going grossly against the popular sentiment in favor of Subash Ghising -- during a popular uprising in Darjeeling for separate statehood of Gorkhaland.
As Congress party MP Mani Kumar Subba told this writer in a recent interview, the movement for Gorkhaland was the most violent and claimed more lives compared to any such movements in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh or Madhya Pradesh. "If there is no problem to carve out Jharkhand, Uttaranchal and Chhatisgarh from these states why the same is not being applied in the case of Nepali-speaking area of West Bengal?" Subba questions. "It's very sad."
There are a number of issues to be discussed, but first both countries should realize the basic grounds in the changed context.
Indian bureaucrats in high offices -- mostly from the South -- either do not understand or do not want to understand the potential of water- and power-sharing deals between the two nations. It seems that the Koshi, the Mahakali, the Seti, the Gandaki in the North are less important for them than the Krishna, the Cauvery and the Godavari of the South. If Indians can threat to raise the Cauvery issue at the International Court of Justice, what is wrong in Nepal asking (to India) for more benefit from it's rivers. Forget about the rest, if only this area of water management is handled in proper fashion, not only Nepal, but also the entire India will be much more prosperous than what it is today. I feel, this is the need of the hour.
If Koirala survives from the challenge given by some of his own colleagues in the Nepali Congress party, he may have another round of talks with Vajpayee in New York, during the UN General Assembly this week. That will give them a renewed opportunity to look into the brighter side of the centuries-old cultural and economic ties, something beyond the day-to-day business and monetary gain.
|
