* 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
