Nepal mayhem: India must exercise caution

By K. K. Katyal

NEW DELHI, JUNE 4. A riddle wrapped in an enigma - that is Nepal today after the trauma of royal assassinations. Questions are galore, answers scarce. Both the monarchy and the democratic set- up have been subjected to tremendous pressure and only a clairvoyant can indicate the precise shape of things in the next few days. In the past, situations much less volatile than the one prevailing now acquired shrill anti-India twists when the elements, with vested interest in creating a rift between New Delhi and Kathmandu, distorted facts. Will they remain idle now?

The killings within the high-security innermost portion of the palace remain a mystery, with the official versions failing to carry conviction with the people - and for good reasons. The first account, ascribed to the deputy prime minister - that crown Prince Dipendra was responsible for the killing of King Birendra and others of the royal family - was modified with a bizarre version that the tragedy was the result of an automatic rifle going off accidentally. It added to the puzzlement and anger at the mass level. Now that Prince Dipendra, who was named the King, after the killings, has succumbed to his injuries, the demand for the truth and the real story is being pressed vociferously and violently. The powers that be will find it well nigh impossible to resist the demand. What is the factual position, that is unfolded by a probe, and what will be the fall- out will have to be watched closely. The crowning of Prince Gyanendra, who was appointed the Regent after the killings, has been greeted with angry protests. The transition is far from smooth. Two kings in two days - this sums up the gravity of the problem.

New Delhi needs to do its utmost to ensure that no syllable uttered by it or no stance adopted by it is capable of being misconstrued or exploited by sections in Nepal's public life which are traditionally inimical to India and derive sustenance from anti-India sentiments. The government here, however, could not ensure against any such eruption in Nepal but it could keep itself one step ahead of the evolving situation, anticipate various scenarios and either plan pre-emptive moves or take prompt action through diplomatic and other channels of bilateral dealings, to counter the effect of any adverse campaign.

Not all in India realise the ease with which the responsibility for any inconvenient domestic situation in Nepal could be foisted on New Delhi. Indian media has a good presence in Nepal. Apart from newspapers, English and Hindi, private television channels such as Star and Zee have a large clientele in Nepal. An average Nepali citizen tends to regard them as the mouthpiece of the government and sees an official stamp on the news and commentaries in the private media.

In the present case, both the newspapers and the television channels have been factual in the coverage of a difficult and highly complicated situation. Likewise the comments have been analytical and interpretative. But the very scale of the coverage and the comprehensive nature of the programmes could cause misunderstandings, especially when interested sections are on the lookout for opportunities. The Hritik Roshan episode was a recent case of a baseless report causing a major anti-India flare-up.

New Delhi would do well to re-affirm sentiments of friendship, its scrupulous adherence to the policy of non- interference in Nepal's domestic affairs. What happened in the last three days was an internal matter - a situation confined to the palace, as per the information available so far - and it should not be hard to counter possible insinuations against India.

The monarchy, which survived major challenges in the past - in early Fifties from the Ranas and in late Eighties from the democratic forces - finds itself in an unenviable position. On the one hand, there is the strong nostalgia about the slain monarch and, on the other, revulsion against the gory events in the palace, ostensibly without any external involvement.

The late king will be remembered for his vision, astuteness and shrewdness. Eleven years ago, he became a constitutional ruler, with power transferred to the people's representatives. Unfortunately, the politicians did not give a good account of themselves, and were unable to provide stability, with ten governments in 11 years. King Birendra genuinely wanted the democratic set-up to succeed - more than once, he rejected the advice of hard-liners for a precipitate action, for intervention. As against that, the new order in the palace will find it hard to restore credibility of which the monarchy was deprived because of the killings. Add to this the agitations by various elements like the Maoists and the scenario appears far from comforting.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Pak. media reports baseless, says BJP
Next     : Help free our fishermen, Jayalalitha tells
           Wickremesinghe