For Modi, the 2014 SAARC Summit in Nepal will be a challenge and an opportunity

This article was first published by Tehelka (www.tehelka.com) on 9 October 2014 under the headline Will Modi’s Gamble Pay Off?

A creditable show by the BJP in Maharashtra could propel the PM to explore talks with Nawaz Sharif on the margins of the SAARC summit next month, says Ramesh Ramachandran

For Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the road to peace with Pakistan will likely pass through Maharashtra. A creditable performance in the Assembly election to be held on 15 October will have consequences far beyond the ordinary, setting him on a trajectory that few could rival.

How well the BJP performs in Maharashtra will determine the following:

♦ Balance of power between his government, on the one hand, and the party and its ideological mentor, the RSS, on the other. A handsome win in Maharashtra, leading to the installation of a government with the BJP playing a key role in it, will further cement his authority in the party and vis-à-vis the RSS. But for that to happen, first Modi and his protégé Amit Shah’s gambit of going it alone in Maharashtra will need to pay off. A BJP win will also silence some, if not all, of his sceptics, critics and naysayers who wondered whether the party’s unprecedented win in Uttar Pradesh in the Lok Sabha election was a flash in the pan or the result of a carefully-crafted strategy executed by Shah, who, as BJP president, now represents a formidable duopoly along with Modi. No doubt, therefore, that the results of the Maharashtra election will be an acid test for the duo

♦ The extent to which Modi would be able to free himself from the pulls and pressures from the BJP, the RSS and their core constituents (who run the risk of becoming restive if Prime Minister Modi doesn’t quite continue to catch their fancy as much as Candidate Modi) and go about fulfilling his mandate, that of delivering on his promise of a fast-track development agenda, putting the economy back on rails and creating jobs, among others. Modi could go in for a reshuffle of his council of ministers, too; and

♦ Last but not the least, whether Modi will be able to transcend the dichotomy between his image and reality and steer his government’s foreign and security policies, particularly vis-à-vis China and Pakistan, in a direction he wants to

The SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) summit to be hosted by Nepal in November will pose a challenge and an opportunity for Modi. The summit, sandwiched as it will be between the Assembly election that would have concluded by then in Maharashtra and the Assembly election due in Jammu and Kashmir, could well see Modi hold a meeting with his Pakistan counterpart Nawaz Sharif.

While a favourable result in Maharashtra would likely shape Modi’s “intent” to re-engage with Sharif, the talks, structured or otherwise, could well go on to impact the “outcome” of the Jammu and Kashmir election, whenever they are held. Not only would re-engaging with Pakistan find a resonance in the Kashmir Valley, it could induce a salutary response from a section of the voters, if not towards the BJP then at least to one of its potential allies.

If the Modi-Shah duo redeem themselves in Maharashtra after a less-than-spectacular performance in the 54 Assembly constituencies across 14 states (Uttarakhand in July; Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Karnataka in August; and Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Assam, West Bengal, Tripura and Sikkim in September) where bypolls were held since the BJP-led NDA came to power on 26 May, then a possible meeting with Sharif on the sidelines of the SAARC summit could lay the groundwork for resumption of talks between the officials of the two countries, to begin with.

India called off foreign secretary-level talks a week before they were to have been held in Islamabad on 25 August, after Pakistan High Commissioner Abdul Basit went ahead with his meeting with a Hurriyat representative disregarding New Delhi’s objections. Sartaj Aziz, adviser to the Pakistan PM on national security and foreign affairs, has since said that probably the meetings with Hurriyat representatives were a mistake and they could have been avoided. For his part, Basit has said that in diplomacy one leaves the door ajar, implying that talks in the future could not be ruled out.

External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj echoed similar sentiments at her maiden press conference in September, when she said, “Diplomacy mein kabhi bhi poorna viraam nahin lagta, there is no full stop in diplomacy. It’s always (a) comma or semicolon. And, after all this, people always move forward. There are no full stops in (the) diplomatic journey.”

As if on cue, National Security Adviser Ajit Doval held talks with Basit on 13 September. This was followed by a meeting between Basit and Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh a few days later.

For his part, Modi iterated in his United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) speech, “I am prepared to engage in a serious bilateral dialogue with Pakistan in a peaceful atmosphere, without the shadow of terrorism, to promote our friendship and cooperation. However, Pakistan must also take its responsibility seriously to create an appropriate environment. Raising issues in this forum is not the way to make progress towards resolving issues between our two countries.”

The message to Islamabad was clear: Choose between the Hurriyat or the Indian government, and between bilateral engagement and raking up outstanding issues in international fora. Although the two PMs did not meet in New York on the margins of the UNGA later that month, they could meet in Kathmandu.

A meeting on the sidelines of the SAARC summit in Kathmandu seems “unavoidable”, says former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal. “Provided there is no major provocation” from the Pakistani side between now and the summit on 26- 27 November, he hastens to add. Sibal was in office when India and Pakistan signed a ceasefire agreement in November 2003.

MK Bhadrakumar, a former diplomat, feels that either side could have pleaded scheduling difficulties in New York but a Modi-Sharif meeting in Kathmandu “cannot be avoided”. He says that it will be embarrassing for Modi if he does not follow up on his talks with Sharif in May, when the latter was invited to New Delhi for the inauguration of Modi as PM.

A strategic analyst with a New Delhi-based think-tank, who did not want to be identified, said that a bilateral meeting would be par for the course but cautioned that should Modi decide to meet Sharif in Kathmandu, they should go beyond restating their respective positions. Otherwise what purpose would be served by only exchanging courtesies? he asked.

Some others cite the asymmetry between the two prime ministers (Modi came to power riding on the back of a huge mandate while Sharif has been rendered weak even as the Pakistani Army gains in influence) to question the wisdom of exploring the possibility of talks.

If the two principals indeed hold a meeting next month, the expectation in some quarters is that it will be followed by an announcement that their foreign secretaries would either meet soon or that they will remain in touch and explore how to move forward.

A house damaged by cross-border shelling in Arnia sector near the India-Pakistan border

Victims undergo treatment at a government hospital in Jammu

However, repeated ceasefire violations (more than 150 this year) by Pakistan at the border and the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir, which claimed the lives of five innocent Indians on 6 October — the highest toll in one day since 2003 — and left some injured, has compelled the BJP to take a position that is patently different from that of its predecessor, which was perceived to be soft on Pakistan.

Home Minister Rajnath Singh warned Pakistan to stop violating the 2003 ceasefire agreement. India, he said, will not tolerate Pakistan’s ceasefire violations anymore and that it should understand the reality that times have changed in India (“Zamaana badal gaya hai”).

Defence Minister Arun Jaitley, in turn, said that the Indian Army was “fully ready” and was responding to the Pakistani provocations.

The Indian Army and the Border Security Force say they retaliated effectively with the same calibre weapons used by Pakistan to repeatedly violate the ceasefire, which was variously described by security sources as an attempt by Pakistan to push in infiltrators into India before winter set in, with a view to disturbing the peace ahead of the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly polls; to deflect attention from political turmoil inside Pakistan; and to keep the Kashmir issue alive and not allow it to recede into the background.

In spite of the recent provocations by Pakistan, a resounding victory at the hustings in Maharashtra could yet resolve Modi’s Hamletian dilemma of how to solve the Pakistan conundrum.

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