Prof. SD Muni
 |
| Prof. S. D. Muni |
With major parties yet to reach thelong-promised
consensus, Indian leaders are once again in town stressing on a pan-political
agreement and maintaining what they say is India’s
non-interference policy.Indian policy towards Nepal emerges as a controversial
issue every time the country sees political changes. To try to get a sense of
that policy, Professor SD Muni, a Nepal-expert in India, was
interviewed by Navin Singh Khadka of the BBC Nepali service
during President Ram BaranYadav’s India-visit in December. (The interview was
broadcast by the BBC then). Excerpts:
We have seen Prime Minister
BaburamBhattarai having had one on one with his Indian counterpart a number of
times. He has told us that he has been able to convince the Indian side that
his government will not allow Nepal
to slide back into political instability. What do you make out of it?
Muni: Listen, the Baburam government, all said
and done, is an elected government. Even the Nepali Congress had at one stage
accepted to form a national government under Baburam and they sent Sitaula to
join the cabinet. And then suddenly, within few days Sitaula was withdrawn. Now
the Maoists and the Nepali Congress had struck a deal that we will carry
through the constitutional process and you will give us the prime ministership
for elections. Somewhere this understanding got vitiated. Now Nepali Congress,
obviously blames Maoists and the later obviously blames the former that Nepali
Congress had no heart in the federal constitution or in the agenda of New Nepal
of political change. The Nepali Congress says that the Maoists have changed
their goal posts and therefore they have altered. This is the real crisis. Now
in this crisis, I think the president has tried. I have a feeling that India tried,
through informal means, to see if a compromise can emerge out of them, but it
is not emerging. And at this stage if the president takes a precipitate action
like dismissing this government and appointing a new prime minister, it will
certainly lead to a conflict because the Maoist claim is that they are an
elected government. So he cannot impose SushilKoirala or any third person as a
prime minister against the wishes of the Maoists because they will then go to
the street and the political instability will ensue. On the other hand, within
the constitutional framework, the president has no right to appoint a prime
minister. That is where the constitutional position is stuck. Anybody, either
the president, or India
or the Nepali Congress and the UML does anything against the consensus, the
situation will deteriorate. On the other hand, Baburam’s government is not
acceptable to these parties. And the Baburam government and the Maoists have
very clearly said they are willing to give in. But, you know there has to be
some give and take on both the sides. Now what is the give on the Nepali
Congress and the UML (is something) I fail to understand. They are simply saying
let this government go and give the power to us and we will decide whatever it
is. You would know that some of the ethnic groups and ethnic parties, including
the Tarai parties, are very strongly suspicious whether the UML and Nepali
Congress would carry out a federal constitution or the New Nepal agenda. This a
political problem and I don’t think an easy way out is possible. Either the
president should accept that the majority government should be allowed to go
through because consensus is not possible and therefore let us go to elections
and defeat them in the elections which the other parties do not seem to be very
confident of.
You have been stressing that theBaburam
governmentis an elected one. But the parliament has been dissolved and the
opposition parties are claiming that this government cannot say that it can
remain in power citing the same parliament.
Fair enough, at the moment it does not have the
parliamentary support. But it came to power through the parliament, that is
point number one. Point number two is I come from a democratic country, and in
India or any other country when the parliament is dissolved for the next
elections, the government which is in office actually holds the election which
the other political parties in Nepal are not allowing or not accepting that.
This is where the problem is. Unfortunately , there is a clause in the interim
constitution that every decision should be taken by consensus. Indian position
has also been the one the president is hanging on. Now consensus is not
possible, at least it does not seem possible because if the consensus was
possible, I think the Baburamgovernment should have been a national government,
they should have drafted a constitution with the help of the Nepali Congress
and they could go to elections. At that time, somebody else could become (the
prime minister). That unfortunately has not happened. I think all these
political parties, including the Maoists are more stuck on power rather than on
principles or commitments for the wellbeing of Nepal. That’s where the problem is.
Now how do you resolve this problem when people have so heavy stakes in power
is a mind-boggling question. I don’t think I have an answer, I don’t think the
president has a clear and clean answer, I don’t think India has a
clean answer. That’s where the problem is.
You have been supportive of this
particular government. You have tweeted saying “national government under
BaburamBhattarai will be a reflection of the restoration of long lost national
consensus...
That was long time back now. That was the time
when the constituent assembly was still on. I have not said it now. In fact my
latest tweet was that every party should nominate two nominees and the Maoists’
nominee should be the prime minister and the rest of the nominee should be in
the cabinet. I have tweeted for a neutral government. I am sorry, I have not
been a supporter of the Maoists. I have been a supporter of a consensus between
the Nepali Congress and the Maoists because that was the basic consensus which brought
about the radical change in Nepal.
Unfortunately that broke down on the basis of power after the elections when
the Maoists emerged as the strongest group and they did not accommodate
Girijababu as the president. That’s where the root of the problem is. I have
written about it. My contention even today is that Nepali Congress and the
Maoists must bring about a consensus. Otherwise, no good will happen to Nepal as a
country.
But we get to read in newspapers about,
for instance, Indian intelligence saying that parties like “Nepali Congress are
deposit power and the Maoists are the emerging power.”
If the intelligence people had the intelligence,
things would have been much different. I am totally cut off by the way
political assessments are made by the intelligence agency. I am more worried
that these political assessments made by the intelligence unfortunately are
being pursued at the political level, at the leadership level, that is the
unfortunate side. But I cannot vouch for what Mr.Tripathy said or what he did
not say as I am sitting in Singapore.
Even if I am in Kathmandu, I would not know
who has said what to whom. I don’t go with these media reports and I mush share
it with you that I have quite serious questions about how Nepali media carries
its stories. They have carried stories about which is totally baseless, they
have carried stories about Shyam Saran which are totally baseless. You can’t
help it, anyway this is a separate issue, it doesn’t deal with the present
question.
You did mention in your chapter in the
book “Nepal
in transition” that there was this relation between the then RAW chief and
BaburamBhattarai and that relation facilitated better understanding between the
Maoists and RAW. What do you think right now is the relation between the two
sides now?
Well, have you read the chapter carefully? You
know, I have been much maligned and abused for that chapter. I tried to
describe the position of the government of India, in which I said the
intelligence chief and the [then] foreign secretary Shyam Saran were on the one
side, the army and others were on the other side. That is how I described it
and I said they pleaded that the Maoists must be listened to and understood
because the change in Nepal
seemed eminent to them. In fact, that is not the meaning of saying that Baburam
was governed by the Indian intelligence agencies of India,
as many of your Nepal
media really broke it out. The intelligence agencies of India, I must tell you, have been
supporting…almost every political party has fallen and sought support from the
intelligence agencies of India,
of America,
and of the European community. You want me to discuss that on the radio,
perhaps I am not ready for that. If I have to write another chapter, I will
write it. But that is not question of political understanding. The political
understanding is people have voted some into power. Under no democratic rule,
there is a musical chair which is happening in Nepal. What is happening in Nepal is it is
our turn to become the prime minister. I have never heard this dialogue in any
democracy. Look at India’s
position, there is so much bad blood between BJP and the UPA government. But
the BJP accepts that you have come to power and you have the majority for
whatever worth it is, you have to have your five years. That is not a principle
that is being accepted in Nepal.
And the whole blame is sometimes on New
Delhi, sometimes on intelligence agencies. I think
there was a time when all the political parties in Nepal were together. Nobody could
influence them. Karan Singh came to influence the Raja and the political
parties were all together. So what happened? Karan Singh’s influence did not
work. So, there may be countries, there may be forces, there may be agencies
which would try to influence the Nepali political scene but they will succeed
only when the Nepali political scene is divided. I think I will urge upon right
thinking Nepalese to please concentrate on this internal division and
fragmentation which has taken place in Nepali politics rather than seeking
solutions anywhere else outside Nepal.
I brought up the issue of Indian
intelligence because many say there is a kind of difference between Indian
establishment and intelligence agencies when it comes to dealing with Nepal. Do you
think so?
The intelligence agencies all over the world put
in their inputs into the government. CIA has a line so far as the US is
concerned. But listen, the last decision – the final decision—comes out of the
political establishment. Let’s accept that.So, is the case with India. India is a
democracy. There are all kinds of interest groups all around, including
intelligence agencies, including army, including former princely states,
business lobbies, people of Indian origin, Shankaracharyas, there is RSS, all
kinds of influences which are there. It’s a hobbyhorse in Nepal to go on
beating about RAW and intelligence agencies. Yes, RAW and intelligence agencies
are there. They work. They sometimes work correctly, sometimes incorrectly,
sometimes they vitiate the problem, sometimes they are unable to do anything.
You can’t peg all your decision making, all your developments in Nepal just on
intelligence agencies. That shows the level of understanding of the Indian
political system. Tell me actually how many Nepalese are understanding or
reading or studying the Indian political system how it works? Intelligence
agencies are not the only factor, only force in the political system.
The newly appointed External Affairs
Minister, Salman Khurshid, said that to break the political stalemate in Kathmandu the only way out is the national consensus
government. That came just when some people believed that BaburamBhattarai
enjoyed the support of the Indian intelligence. So, does what Mr.Khursidsaid
mark a shift in the Indian establishment’s policy?
What Khurshid has said has been said repeatedly
from 2006 onwards. I am telling you consensus is the only answer. If there is
no consensus today, let the President take a precipitate decision as the Nepali
Congress or UML are asking him to do that and appoint a new prime minister, you
will see the whole of Kathmandu boiling in one way or the other. See, this is
not the answer. Or, today even the president said alright, let Baburam do
whatever he wants to do there will be another group of people agitating on the
streets of Kathmandu. That’s not an answer.
Real answer is consensus. When did India deviate from consensus?
Consistently, Indian policy has been that there should be a consensus—whatever
the consensus is. The consensus may be on a particular prime minister,
particular party or consensus may be even on a neutral government. So, it all
depends on how your consensus evolves. If people in Nepal, who are in politics,
are not willing to make even a temporary compromise from their power ambition,
God save the country and God save the people, I tell you.
It is often said that Indian politicians
or establishment don’t have much time for Nepalese issues and affairs…
That is true. I have said that publicly in Kathmandu. When you give too much of weightage to India, try to
understand that Indian politicians, Indian establishment have many other issues
to deal with. They are not all the time—as media in Nepal
will project—busy in conspiring in Nepal, who should do what. This is
not their business. They react extempore sometimes but when policy is made all
of the factors are taken into account. Policy at the moment and since 2006 has
been that you go by consensus. If consensus fails, then your interim
constitution provides for a majority government within the parliament. So after
what you call an interim government all other governments have been majority
government.
Top leaders, including the President of
India (when he was the foreign minister), have gone on the record saying that
India was the country that helped bring Maoists into the political mainstream
to launch Nepal’s peace process.And now that things are not happening and
people on the streets are suffering, don’t you think India should correct
itself vis a visits Nepal policy?
What did it do? It helped the peace process to
come up. When the Maoists started to come to mainstream, the King started
talking to them. Was it not true? When everything else failed, all the
political parties wanted India
to be involved. Yes, India
got involved in the peace process. It is unfortunate that what India thought
would happen has not happened. So, it is the failure of that policy but in that
policy, India
was one of the factors. India
was not the only, the single factor analysis. The apology should come from the
political parties. You don’t remember your political leaders have been slapped
by your people largely because they broke their aspirations, they violated
their aspirations. India
has made a policy calculation that if this change comes about, democracy would
stabilise. Democracies don’t stabilise in one year or two year or three year or
four years. So, you call in Nepali a ‘sankraman’ period, it’s a transition
period. Transition has been very very painful. It is painful to Nepali people,
it is painful to Indian decision makers also. I was supportive of this change
and today I say, democracy is any day better than the royalist regime. I have
no hesitation in saying even at the cost of abuse or harass. But, that is my
opinion. I mean democracy is better for Thailand,
democracy is better for Maldives,
democracy is better for Pakistan,
for any other country. This is our opinion. But people of Nepal decided,
they came out on the streets and they all pinned their hopes on political
parties. Who have not delivered them? Yes, India can sit down and regret that
the kind of faith they had on Nepali leadership has not come true. But
apologise to whom? What crime Indian policy committed in helping transition to
a democratic regime from an autocratic system?
I have seen your write-ups talking about
Chinese influence growing in Nepal.
Do you still see that happening?
I don’t think I have written it but I would say China is an
emerging global power. I cannot imagine a situation in which Chinese influence
is not growing in Nepal or South Asia when it is growing all over the world. So,
what is the big deal about it? I think there are several policy decisions made
by the Prime Ministers of India in which he has said Chinese influence is
growing, we have to adjust, we have to deal with China not only in X, Y, Z
countries, also in South Asia. It is not as much a challenge to Indian
diplomacy, it is as much a challenge to Chinese diplomacy. Chinese are asking India not to dabble into South China Sea which
is India’s
neighbourhood. This is a separate issue than the internal political system of Nepal.
But then they say that this is where Nepal gets
caught in the crossfire, which engulfs everything including politics.
Well it happens when regional and international
changes take place. India
got caught in the cold war crossfire. India can today, tomorrow get
caught in the US-China crossfire. India got caught into the
Pakistan-China crossfire. It happens. This is the strength of your political
leadership to cope with these challenges. I think in India they will cope with these
challenges. China is crying
hoarse why US is coming in South East Asia.
Well, they will have to cope with it.These are the challenges of international
system, these are the challenges of global power politics. You can’t deny them.
One has to face them.
So, don’t you think it is expecting too
much of the fighting political parties in Nepal to deal with these huge
emerging global powers?
Well, Khadkajee, I have my full sympathy for Nepal. All the
time I have been praying, I have written to many of my best friends in Nepal. We have
all been wishing for stability in Nepal. The Nepali leadership will
be able to cope with regional and international changes, if they succeed in
coping with their own domestic changes and challenges. Unfortunately, they have
failed so far in coping with their own domestic challenges. Tell me, all the
political parties can’t wait until elections are held. They all want to remain
in power to hold the elections because they feel insecure. They are very afraid
that if they go to the elections without being in the power they would not
return their own candidates. In this kind of a situation, one can only sit down
and pray to the God that give them good sense so that they think of people of
Nepal, wellbeing of Nepal rather than they being in power for four months or
six months or eight months or twelve months.
Courtesy: BBC Nepali Service
No comments:
Post a Comment