The present coalition of Nepal shows a paradoxical scenario about its acceptance at large; within country government led by Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal uprightly facing the crisis of legitimacy besides consistent hostile opposition from Maoists but in external affairs it receiving warm accolades from friend nations like India, where this government has seen as best alternative representation through democratic practices.
Here Indian concerns are vital since historically India have been sharing the plights of Nepal with strong sense of responsibility; in recent past India played very positive role in post monarchial political adjustment in Nepal especially in peace process with Maoists and forming a consensus on twelve point agreement.
But through recent developments in Nepalese politics, Maoists role could be just extrapolated as bemoaning force who blurring the entire peace process and move for constitution drafting. At this point Maoists must strive for at least an expedient move for consensus with ruling parties to hold its prominence intact in national politics and stop embittering Nepal’s most trusted ally, India.
Indian concerns to Nepal has always been genuine and will remain same, the only things has to be see in proper light by the Maoists or other dogmatists who suspiciously rated the Indian involvement in their country; they must have sense that an unstable Nepal with its ramifications would equally pose threats for a vast home land which India sharing along with the border of Nepal, so good or bad stack for both countries will depend upon the stability and harmony across the border without disturbing the elegant threads which these two nation have been relentlessly maintaining so far.
At present juncture Maoists are playing the game of personification inside the Nepal in exactly confused state to locate themselves at the helm of affairs within country and outside; ideology is major deterrent before their potential impartial role in Nepalese politics.
Indeed Maoists are caught in ambiguous web of ideology which they are not becoming to shape in their indigenous circumstances that making their attitude haughty with sharp divergence between their saying and intention. Pragmatism is the need of hour for all democratic forces of Nepal; and being a strong component, Maoists also have to act with more responsibility to end the apprehensions of India about theirs undue proximity with China and anti Indian sentiments in Nepal’s some quarter which forming negative biases towards the traditional ties of India and Nepal.
From Indian side, intellectuals and officials of Ministry of External Affairs have frequently stressing on the crucial role of Maoists in new political order which also well acknowledged by the Maoists chief Pushpa Kamal Dahal”Prachanda” in an interview with Prerna Marasani of The Hindu (Friday,October6th2009).
Now Maoists must hails such word of support and legitimacy by striving to sort out all complexities of its further involvement with India; indeed Maoists proactive and peaceful participation in crucial matters, like civil supremacy, constitution drafting etc would broaden their acceptance in country and abroad.
Assertions of radical ideology in a multi party democracy like Nepal is a very tough task, since its lacking the required authoritarian mechanism, so experiments of Maoism in Nepal are an unusual phenomenon that was hardly occurred anywhere else in similar manner.
Rudimentary principles of Maoism in Nepal stand on the notional basis of a strong and energetic state that Nepal completely lacking today; so foremost task that Maoists must have to deal immediately to strengthen the pillars of Nepalese state and rationalize their ideological practices as per their local conditions without completely emulating any other nation’s experiments.
In his recently published article in The Hindu (Monday, September14th2009), Kathmandu based journalist Prashant Jha has revealed that India could enjoy two strategic options, generative and degenerative to deal with Nepal.I have slightly different standpoint about his perceptions, with reiterating again the fact that India could never play a spoiling role in Nepal because of close inherent nature of their relationships and that must be taken as true matter of perception in this regard.
So former options seems completely subversive as per the track record of Indian involvement in Nepal, somehow, it’s a completely unrealistic proposition from both countries perspectives. What India could find a niche for itself in a stable and peaceful Nepal forming out through the people’s aspirations and consensus of its political parties?
Atul Kumar Thakur
October10th2009, New Delhi