India and Nepal: Today and tomorrow *

* As prepared for delivery at India Nepal Journalist Conference, Kathmandu, on 14 May 2011

1. ASSUMPTIONS

1.1 Distrust between India and the Maoists is not narrowing in part due to the Maoists’ thought, speech and deed, and in part due to India’s security and geopolitical compulsions

1.2 War of attrition is on between and among the parties - the Maoists; other political parties of Nepal; and India and the international community

1.3 Status quo is not acceptable

2. THE VIEW FROM INDIA

2.1 Once bitten twice shy !

2.1 (a) I don’t know if there is anything called India’s Nepal Policy or a Neighbourhood Policy, but if there is one, I will say it is a work in progress, or, as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said in a different context, an essay in comprehension.

2.1 (b) India midwifed the 22 November 2005 12 Point Agreement between the Maoists and the Seven Party Alliance, but developed cold feet when the Maoists emerged as the single largest party in the 10 April 2008 Constituent Assembly election !

2.2 The Indian distrust of the Maoists

The events leading up to the 4 May 2009 resignation by Prachanda from the post of Prime Minister, particularly Prachanda’s attempt to alter the civil-military balance of power by sacking the then Nepal Army chief Gen Rookmangud Katawal, was a tipping point for the relationship between India and the Maoists, and the relationship has never been the same since then. Or, put differently, Prachanda gave India an excuse it was waiting for to begin to distance itself from the Maoists

2.3 There are (shifting) red lines

2.3 (a) India has reconciled to the demise of monarchy after years of following the twin pillars of constitutional monarchy and multi party democracy

2.3 (b) Security concerns are interlinked because of an open border, and security is dynamic in the sense that it is a function of, and interplay of, external and internal environments

2.3 (c) India will not want to lose Nepal, literally, figuratively, every which way you look at it.

2.4 Geography is destiny !

2.4 (a) That said, there is a view in New Delhi that geography is destiny, a phrase you often hear in Indian official circles, which implies that neighbours ought to work together in a spirit of mutual accommodation; that engagement is a two-way street

2.4 (b) "Pess-optimism" is another word that describes India’s attitude toward the peace process in Nepal

2.5 Concerns

2.5 (a) Harassment of larger Indian joint ventures in Nepal

2.5 (b) Protection of Indian investments in Nepal and delay in completion of Indian projects in Nepal

2.5 (c) Delay in the signing of Bilateral Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement (BIPPA) and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)

2.5 (d) Delay in the signing of Revised Extradition Treaty and Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT)

2.6 Security

2.6 (a) Smuggling of FICN (Fake Indian Currency Note) to India through Nepal

2.6 (b) Use of Nepal for activities inimical to India’s interests

2.6 (c) China Study Centres in Nepal along the India - Nepal border

2.6 (d) Difficulty for Tibetans to enter / leave Nepal

2.7 (Missed) opportunities?

Cooperation in hydro-power, climate change, clean energy, etc: Prachanda himself had spoken about hydro-power cooperation in his September 2008 visit to India but projects have been slow to take-off

3. NEPAL IS NOT DOING BADLY

3.1 Belgium has not had a government in 333 days and counting, as on 12 May 2011.

3.2 The world record for the longest time a country has gone without a government stands in the name of Cambodia -- 354 days, in 2004. (source: Guinness World Records)

3.3 Some other countries that have gone without a government for a long duration are Iraq (289 days, in 2010) and the Netherlands (207 days, in 1977). It took 218 days (between 30 June 2010 and 3 February 2011) and 17 rounds of voting before Nepal finally got a government, so Nepal has not done too badly !

3.4 Nepal has had eight persons as 11 prime ministers since 2000. Japan has had seven persons as 10 prime ministers since 2000 with not one prime minister lasting more than 12 months in the past five years. (source: Wikipedia). Another reason why Nepal has not done too badly !

3.5 Jan Andolan - II happened to Nepal in 2006 before people’s revolutions of the kind we are witnessing today in some parts of the world.

4. MAOISTS ARE RISKING LOSING GOODWILL

4.1 The attack on the Indian ambassador and Indian investments, etc, have only accentuated the differences between India and the Maoists

4.2 Maoists have spoken of prime ministership by rotation but did not agree to it when it came to giving the Nepali Congress Party a shot at heading a government

4.3 Maoists have succeeded in abolishing monarchy, in instituting a republic, but they need to curb or temper their enthusiasm in the interest of taking the peace process to a logical conclusion. But, the Maoists think the onus is on others. To the question as to who needs to be more flexible, Baburam Bhattarai, vice-chairman of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), told some of us in his January 2011 visit to New Delhi, "Naturally, the other political forces who were not for republicanism, who were not for constituent assembly, who were not for federalism. These demands were raised by the Maoists. Because of us, because of our movement, we have reached this far. So the other political parties who backed the monarchy earlier, I think they should be more responsible, and make this peace process a success."

5. ARE THE MAOISTS TRULY COMMITTED TO MULTI-PARTY DEMOCRACY?

5.1 Doubt persists in some political parties of Nepal; in India; and in a section of the international community

5.2 The Maoists have done nothing substantial to dispel those doubts, and the attacks on the Indian diplomats, showing disrespect to the Indian flag, fanning anti-India sentiments, have only made it worse and strengthened a belief that no one party should have a veto over the course of events

5.3 For their part, the Maoists have been evasive on this issue. In the interview I have cited earlier, Mr Bhattarai gave a qualified response. He said: "... till the last moment we should contribute our might for the success of [the constitution-making ] process. In case that does not happen, then the people have the right to protest, in the form of a people's movement. That is the last resort. So that is just a hypothetical proposition. In practice, till May 2011, our party will make all efforts to make the peace process a success."

5.4 To another question, whether there is a danger that Nepal might slide back into violence, Mr Bhattarai had this to say: "The danger is there, but I'm optimistic. We are passing through a stage of an epochal change, and epochal changes do not take place in months or years, they take decades. So you shouldn't be too pessimistic. I hope we will reach an understanding and we will focus on making the constitution, that is the key issue."

6. IS CALLING FOR A FRESH ELECTION A WAY OUT TO BREAK THE IMPASSE? IF YES, HOW EARLY CAN THE ELECTION BE HELD?

6.1 Argument for holding an election:

6.1 (a) A second extension is only going to prolong the status quo, and, therefore, a new Constituent Assembly can be a good option for breaking the stalemate.

6.1 (b) One cannot be faulted for going back to the people for a fresh mandate. Let people decide !

6.1 (c) The Maoists could find it difficult to win as many seats as they did in 2008 because they would have lost momentum in the intervening years and will find it difficult to replicate their 2008 success.

6.2 Argument against holding an election:

6.2 (a) It is not a foolproof or failsafe option, and the future may be worse than the present !

6.2 (b) The Maoists are understandably opposed to the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly and holding of a fresh election, and it cannot be said with any degree of certainty how they will react to it. (At the same time, the Maoist leadership runs the risk of rendering their cadres more restless and more edgy than they already are)

6.2 (c) India, on the other hand, runs the risk of being accused of micro-managing the election to suit its interests

India and US agree to disagree on China, too

New Delhi

22 May 2011

A "national consensus across the board" was required on whether China is "a threat or is [it] a neighbour that we can go along with", former national security adviser MK Narayanan had posed three years ago, delivering the 25th Air Chief Marshal PC Lal Memorial Lecture here.

Much water has flown down the Brahmaputra since then, but China has remained reluctant to resolve the boundary question. There is no explicit agreement on the issue of stapled visa, either. China's foray into Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK) has further roiled the Sino-Indian discourse, all of which forced New Delhi to tweak the Dragon's tail, first by feting Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo in Norway, and then by omitting any reference to one-China from the joint statement issued towards the end of Premier Wen Jiabao's visit here in December 2010.

Today, just when New Delhi was coming around to the view that its relationship with Beijing was indeed "adversarial" in many respects, and, therefore, it required to be handled with prudence and firmness, comes sobering news from an American official and an academic that only reinforces what Admiral Robert Willard, head of the US Pacific Command, had said during his visit here in September 2010.

The Admiral had told journalists that the US shared India's concerns about China's assertiveness and its presence in PoK, but while "any change in military relations or military manoeuvres by China that raises concerns of India" could certainly be considered as occurring within his area of responsibility, India will have to tackle its issues on its own.

Michael Auslin from the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, told this correspondent in New Delhi that the issues of stapled visa and Jammu and Kashmir were problems between India on the one hand and China and Pakistan on the other, unlike the South China Sea, which was a global common. Auslin noted that the contours of US-China ties had of late changed from "engage, then hedge" to "hedge, then engage."

A further indication of where Washington stood on India's core issues was provided by an American official who insisted that the US-China relations was neither an either/or case nor a friend-or-foe choice. This official said it was "only natural" that as China rises, it becomes assertive; that "confrontation is not inevitable", and both the US and China had much to gain from cooperation than conflict.

By India's own admission, the challenge of fashioning a coherent China policy is made difficult by the cold reality, brought home after Osama bin Laden's killing, that Pakistan's strategic value to the US will likely remain; India was alone in its fight against terrorism, and that Washington could not be expected to fight New Delhi's battles.

Save for former US national security adviser Gen James Jones (Retd)'s remark about how lucky the US was to have Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who took "personal risk along the Pakistani-Indian border to make sure that there's no provocation", there has been no recompense for India or the 26/11 victims.

The dissonance between India and the US also extends to Afghanistan and Iran. India's abstention on Libya vote, and rejection of US aircraft from a multi-billion dollar tender, have accentuated the divergences.

India sticks to kid-glove Lanka policy

New Delhi

17 May 2011

India omitted any reference to a contentious United Nations (UN)-mandated experts' panel in the joint press statement issued towards the end of Sri Lankan foreign minister GL Peiris' visit to New Delhi, which should be seen as in keeping with its policy lately of treating Colombo with kid gloves.

The statement merely cited external affairs minister SM Krishna as saying, cryptically, about investigations into allegations of human rights violations, but in response to a mention by Mr Peiris of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC). Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa had appointed the commission to look into the last months of the civil war.

The advisory report of UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon's three-member panel of experts on accountability with respect to final stages of the Lankan conflict has accused Colombo of war crimes. The report was submitted to Mr Ban on April 12, and it was made public on April 25 in New York.

Since the report was released, New Delhi has maintained that the issues raised in it needed to be studied carefully. However, Mr Peiris removed any doubt about where India stood on the issue when he said in a media interaction that New Delhi had shown "empathy" and "understanding", and there existed a "reservoir of goodwill" toward Colombo.

"There is no single path to the summit of mountain," Mr Peiris further sought to tell a section of the international community, alluding to Colombo's stand that the LLRC enjoyed the "blessings of the world", and it should not be dismissed, at least not before it had concluded its work, in favour of the UN's advisory report.

Mr Peiris' visit came ahead of the second anniversary of the end of Sri Lanka's civil war on 19 May 2009.

He said that the Lankan government had completed six rounds of talks with representatives of Tamil parties on the issue of a devolution package. "It is an ongoing dialogue," he noted.

Mr Peiris called on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and finance minister Pranab Mukherjee. He will travel to China and Indonesia next week.

India is in Afghanistan for the long haul, PM to tell Karzai

New Delhi

11 May 2011

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will travel to Kabul Thursday in what will be his first visit to Afghanistan since August 2005. His visit can be expected to deliver "a lot of tangibles", a government source said, without elaborating.

He will likely tell President Hamid Karzai that India's assistance to Afghanistan's reconstruction and development was not contingent on presence and absence of foreign troops, and that India was in it for the long haul.

The source indicated that India can be expected to stay the course in Afghanistan in the post-Osama bin Laden era, and continue its reconstruction and development programmes in a "low key", "sotto voce" manner.

India would be willing to help the government and people of Afghanistan in every which way possible, in areas ranging from infrastructure, capacity building and skill development to mining and agriculture.

New Delhi believed it was too early to conclude how Osama's killing would affect the course of events in the Af-Pak region because terrorist groups such as the Taliban and the Haqqani network remained "as strong and virulent as ever."

India would be keen to encourage private sector investments and facilitate the participation of its companies. For instance, about 15 firms have expressed interest in the development of the Hajigak iron ore mine.

India would also be willing to step up its training efforts in areas such as policing, information technology, and mining. Kabul was exploring the possibility of sending Afghans to the Indian School of Mines at Dhanbad in Jharkhand.

Mr Singh said in a statement on the eve of his departure that he would hold wide-ranging discussions with President Hamid Karzai on ways to advance the bilateral ties and also exchange views on regional developments and the common fight against terrorism.

"We cannot remain unaffected by developments in Afghanistan. We take a long-term view of our partnership with Afghanistan," he said, noting that "if our region has to prosper and move ahead, Afghanistan must succeed in rebuilding itself."

"India's commitment to assisting the people of Afghanistan is enduring and has weathered many storms," Mr Singh said. India's development assistance commitment to Afghanistan is over Rs 4,000 crore, making it the sixth largest donor.

The government source clarified that India was "not propagating an exclusivist approach" or "not making demands" of Afghanistan insofar as its ties with China and Pakistan were concerned.

India respected the "sovereignty" of decision making of Afghanistan, and would welcome contributions by countries in the region, such as China and Pakistan, to the development of Afghanistan, the source added.

India says peace talks with Pakistan will continue

New Delhi

4 May 2011

India has let it be known that the peace talks with Pakistan will continue as usual, and that the India-Pakistan narrative should be seen divorced from the killing of Osama bin Laden.

"[Osama's killing] does not change the universe of discourse" between India and Pakistan, an official source said, adding that the forthcoming official-level talks could be expected to proceed as per plan.

This newspaper had reported Tuesday that Prime Minister Singh was indeed likely to stay the course in spite of pressure on him to reappraise his Pakistan initiative. In doing so he would be guided by the desire not to fritter away the gains made in official and unofficial (track-two) talks with Islamabad in recent years.

The source defended the government's position by saying that India had to engage Pakistan in order to make any progress on issues such as trade, people-to-people contacts, and Jammu and Kashmir.

Adopting a multi-pronged approach, India would look to strengthen the hands of democratic forces and civil society in Pakistan even as it makes efforts at multilateral levels to address the issue of terrorism directed against India.

Those efforts would involve proscribing, or naming and shaming, the terrorist groups by the United Nations security council's "1267 committee", and expediting the process of adoption of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism.

On Pakistan foreign secretary Salman Bashir's comment that India's demand for action against the 26/11 terrorists was "outdated", the source said "that cannot be a serious statement."

Speaking in Islamabad, Bashir had said Tuesday, "It is a familiar line (and) outdated. It is some part of the old system repeating itself[.] This line of thinking is mired in a mindset that is neither realistic nor productive. Such statements are not very helpful [to the peace process]."

No Geronimo-like operation for India

New Delhi

4 May 2011

India has sought to put a lid on the debate about whether it can or should copy American-style surgical strikes or Israeli targeted assassinations to eliminate targets inside Pakistan by saying that it is an idea whose time may never come.

An official source says India would not want to emulate the US or Israel because one, India is not US, and two, India's relations with Pakistan are historically and qualitatively different from Washington's ties with Islamabad.

The source pointed out that India is conscious of the fact that while Pakistan may be a "foreign" country in the strict sense of the word, it was a "part of us", and it behoves India to take a sober and reasoned view of the relationship.

"It is easy to be hawkish on Pakistan but the story won't end [with the] capture of one or two [individuals]," the source said, before going on to emphasise that dismantling of the infrastructure of terrorism will require a change in Pakistan's mindset.

Further, the source noted, "[The] idea is not to bring Pakistan to its knees[.] It is not an exercise [in] retribution, [to] humiliate [Pakistan.]"

The remarks come at a time when some Indians, analysts and retired military officers included, are wondering why their country must not emulate the Americans and liquidate some of the most wanted fugitives from Indian law.

The chiefs of the Indian army and air force, too, have commented saying that the Indian armed forces were competent to carry out an Abbottabad-like operation, and that India was capable of taking out the 26/11 perpetrators inside Pakistan.

The source said that it was "logical to deduce" that many of the terrorists wanted in India for acts of terrorism were inside Pakistan, and acknowledged the "frustration" of many Indians at not seeing them brought to justice.

While India has "drawn a blank" insofar as the terrorists hiding in Pakistan were concerned, it has had some success in getting 16 or 17 persons deported from Dubai, it was pointed out.

India tells US: The "war on terror" cannot end with Osama's killing

New Delhi

4 May 2011

India has reminded the US, flush from its success in liquidating Osama bin Laden, that the war on terror cannot end without the elimination of terrorist safe havens inside Pakistan.

India was categorical that Osama's death was "not an end of what remains an ongoing war" against terrorism. More so because Al Qaeda's affiliates such as the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT) remain formidable and continue to espouse violent ideology.

At the same time, Osama's killing had brought home the cold reality that India was "alone" in its fight against terrorism: That Washington could not be expected to fight Delhi's battles, and that Pakistan's strategic value to the US will likely remain.

Another reality was that while Osama's killing would have brought closure for the 9/11 victims in the US, there could not be any for the 26/11 victims till the terrorist camps in Pakistan or Pakistani-held territory were dismantled.

An official source explained away the difficulties by saying that there will always come moments in the US' relations with Pakistan when certain decisions that will be taken will not be palatable to India.

However, the source was quick to point out that there were reasons for India to be "satisfied" with how its ties with the US had "matured" over the years, and that both sides were collaborating on issues of mutual interest or concern.

For instance, New Delhi would be looking to Washington for its views about whether and how "Operation Geronimo" would affect the balance of power between civilian government and the military in Pakistan.

New Delhi was assessing the impact of Osama's killing on the role of the "larger than life" institutions in Pakistan such as the army and the ISI as it could have a bearing on Pakistan's disposition towards India, and tied to it would be the fate of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Pakistan initiative and the resumed peace process.

Another issue that will engage the attention of India going forward is Afghanistan, as the US prepares to draw down its forces there. New Delhi was against allowing Islamabad a veto over India's role in Afghanistan.

These, and other issues, were expected to come up in the second round of the India-US strategic dialogue, to be held in July, when US secretary of state Hillary Clinton will arrive here for talks with external affairs minister SM Krishna.

India's Af-Pak policy comes under strain

New Delhi

3 May 2011

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's disengagement-is-not-an-option line came under increased strain Tuesday following Pakistan's unhelpful attitude on the issue of bringing the 26/11 perpetrators to justice.

Salman Bashir, Pakistan's foreign secretary, dismissed New Delhi's demand for action against the 26/11 terrorists, reiterated most recently by home minister P Chidambaram on Monday, as "outdated".

"It is a familiar line (and) outdated. It is some part of the old system repeating itself[.] This line of thinking is mired in a mindset that is neither realistic nor productive. Such statements are not very helpful [to the peace process]," Bashir said.

However, indications are that Prime Minister Singh was likely to stay the course in spite of pressure on him to reappraise his Pakistan initiative and to craft an appropriate Afghanistan strategy in the post-Osama bin Laden era.

There was a view in official circles that India must persist with the dialogue, if it does not want to fritter away the gains made in official and unofficial (track-two) talks with Islamabad, and if it wants the 'Mohali spirit' to survive.

The prime ministers of India and Pakistan would get at least two opportunities to re-engage each other, on the margins of the Saarc summit in Maldives in November this year, and on the sidelines of the July 2012 NAM summit in Iran.

A section of the official circles said that it became even imperative that New Delhi brought diplomatic pressure to bear upon Islamabad, given its inability or reluctance to mount covert operations inside Pakistan.

Also, it was pointed out that Prime Minister Singh need only take a cue from his British counterpart, David Cameron, who said that the world must remain engaged with Pakistan if only to strengthen the hands of the civilian government there.

Cameron had accused Pakistan of looking "both ways" on terrorism in July 2010, and his words were only now finding a resonance in Washington and other world capitals following Pakistan's alleged complicity in harbouring Osama bin Laden.