The Hindu : Opinion / Editorials : NO ARMS FOR NEPAL

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Feb 05, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

NO ARMS FOR NEPAL

AT A TIME when the direction of foreign policy tends to be set by the strategic calculations of what passes for `national interest' rather than the coordinates of a moral compass, it is commendable that India has chosen to take a clear stand against the coup d'etat staged by King Gyanendra of Nepal. By arrogating all power to himself, arresting the leaders of political parties who have never wavered in their commitment to a pluralist democracy despite grave provocation from Narayanhiti Palace, severing all communication links within and from the country, and imposing press censorship, the King has crossed a dangerous line. The takeover was timed with an eye to the Dhaka summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. King Gyanendra was counting on the February 6 event to provide him the oxygen of legitimacy. By denying him the resuscitating clasp of a handshake and the flash of a joint photo-op, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has acted in the best interest of India, Nepal, and the region — and, in the process, risen above other South Asian leaders. Postponing the SAARC summit will no doubt have other costs and implications. But enabling a collective South Asian legitimisation of the King's usurpation of power would have been deeply demoralising for the defenders of democracy in Nepal.

In order to step up pressure on the King, Indian policy now needs to go from the symbolic to the substantial — from the denial of a photo-op to the denial of arms and ammunition to the Royal Nepal Army (RNA). If New Delhi is serious when it says a political solution to the Maoist insurgency in Nepal must be found, it should consider the impact the ongoing weapons relationship has on the mindset of King Gyanendra and the RNA brass. India has supplied more than Rs.400 crore worth of materiel to the Nepalese armed forces in the past three years. Until this week, it could at least argue it was helping the army of a democratic government. That fig leaf has been blown away. Shutting down this arms pipeline — even if, in consequence, the King turns to other suppliers — will strongly reinforce New Delhi's position that a military solution to the problem of insurgency is not possible. It will also send a clear signal to King, Army, and political courtiers that the reactionary coup of February 1 is, in a word, unacceptable where it counts most.

Part of the problem, however, is that India continues to look at the King, the RNA, and even the multi-party system in Nepal in a mainly instrumental fashion. This means decisions on whom to support at what time are taken primarily on the basis of assessing who will be most effective in crushing or modulating the Maoist insurgency. However, democracy in Nepal is a necessity in and of itself, even if it means the insurgents are sometimes able to take advantage of the often-chaotic nature of democratic governance and processes. In seeking a showdown with the Maoists, King Gyanendra has shown that his real target is the 1990 Constitution: it granted, in his view, too many prerogatives to the political parties and the people, especially Nepal's impoverished peasants and marginalised ethnic groups. The Maoists, on the other hand, say the 1990 Constitution did not go far enough in recognising people's rights; they demand a new Constituent Assembly to modernise Nepal's polity and system of governance. King Gyanendra has foolishly engineered a clash between these two visions of his country's future. The sordid drama he has staged will no doubt take many twists and turns before there is a denouement. But India would be wise to begin the process of imagining what was inconceivable a few years ago: Nepal without a King.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

NO ARMS FOR NEPAL

TREATING HIV

The unbearable lightness of seeing

Evolution takes a backseat