खरानीका निम्ति घर जलाउँदै प्रचण्ड

देवप्रकाश त्रिपाठी

मानिसको शरीरमा अविच्छिन्न अन्योन्याश्रित कुनै अङ्गले निहुँ खोज्न थाल्यो भने के होला ? सुरुमा त शरीरले दुःख पाउला तर कालान्तरमा निहुँ खोज्ने अङ्गले पनि त्यसको स्वाभाविक दण्ड पाउने निश्चित हुन्छ । शरीरमा नाक, कान, आँखा, हात, गोडा आदि जे–जति अङ्ग छन् ती सबैको समुच्च रूप मानिस हो । एउटा पूर्ण मानव बन्न अनेकौँ अङ्गहरूको अविच्छिन्न समन्वय र साथको आवश्यकता पर्छ । त्यसैले अङ्गहरूको समष्टिले मात्र आफू मानिस भएको दाबी गर्न सक्छ ।

शरीरमा नाकले म नाक हुँ मान्छे होइन भन्न थाल्यो भने, त्यसैगरी आँखा, कान, हात, गोडा आदि सबै अङ्ग–प्रत्यङ्गले आफू मानिस भनेर चिनिन नचाहने र सबै आफू जे हो त्यही परिचयमा स्थापित हुन चाहने हो भने मानिसको अस्तित्व, पहिचान र भविष्य सङ्कटमा पर्छ कि पर्दैन भन्ने प्रश्न गरिरहनु नपर्ला । मानिस जीवित रहन सकेछ भने पनि उसले आफूलाई नाक, कान, घाँटी, हात, गोडा आदि रूपमा चिनिनुपर्नेछ, मानिस हुनुको आत्मगौरव गर्न उसले पाउने छैन । यदि यस्तो अवस्था आयो भने बिचरो ‘त्यो’ मान्छेको हालत कस्तो होला, ठीक यस्तै प्रश्न अब नेपालतिर फर्किएर गर्नुपर्ने भएको छ ।

नेपालका केही प्रमुख विशेषतामध्ये एउटा जातीय सद्भावलाई मानिन्थ्यो । जो जुन जाति, भाषा, धर्म र क्षेत्रका भए पनि जातजातिहरू एक–आपसमा अन्तरघुलित भई ‘हामी सबै नेपाली’ भन्ने भावना–धारणा प्रबल रूपमा स्थापित हुँदै जाँदा नेपालको जातीय सद्भाव विश्वमै अनुकरणीय एवम् उदाहरणीय बन्न पुगेको थियो ।

एक सयभन्दा बढी जातजाति रहेको नेपालमा जातजातिबीचको परस्पर सद्भावपूर्ण मिलाप कतिपय विदेशी मित्रहरूलाई ग्राह्य र पाच्य हुन सकिरहेको थिएन । नेपालको राष्ट्रिय एकीकरण र एकतामा सर्वत्र फैलिएर योगदान पुर्‍याइरहेका क्षत्री, ब्राह्मण, दलित, दशनामी, नेवार र मगरलगायतका समुदायमध्ये क्षत्री–ब्राह्मणलाई कमजोर नतुल्याएसम्म नेपाली राष्ट्रियता र राष्ट्रिय एकताको ढाड भाँच्न सकिँदैन भन्ने बुझेपछि अदृश्य शक्तिहरूले मधेसी र जनजातिबीचको एकताको नारा अघि सारेको देखिन्छ । मधेसी र जनजातिको धर्म, संस्कार, परम्परा, चाडपर्व, संस्कृति, सोच, व्यवहार, रीतिरिवाज, भाषा, भेष, रङ्ग, नश्ल केही पनि मिल्दैन । यी दुई समुदायबीचको अन्तर पूर्व र पश्चिमजत्तिकै छ भन्न सकिन्छ । तथापि दुईबीचको एकताको एउटा सूत्र रह्यो, जसका आधारमा उनीहरू एकजुट हुनसक्थे त्यो हो– क्षत्री, ब्राह्मणविरुद्धको यात्रा ।

मधेसी र जनजातिबीचको एकता दिगो हुने प्रकृतिको त छँदै छैन । यसको आधार नकारात्मक र बदलाको भावनाबाट उत्प्रेरित छ । क्षत्री–ब्राह्मणलाई समाप्त गर्न बनेको गठबन्धन त्यस दिनसम्म मात्र कायम हुनेछ जुन दिन क्षत्री–ब्राह्मण सकिएको या कमजोर भएको महसुस उनीहरूलाई हुनेछ । त्यसपछिको युद्ध जनजाति र मधेसीबीचकै हो भन्नेमा शङ्का गरिरहनुपर्ने छैन । अदृश्य शक्तिको आडमा बनेको गठबन्धनको आयु यसर्थमा धेरै लामोचाहिँ देखिँदैन ।

एकल जातीय आधारमा राज्यको नामकरण मात्र गरिए पनि सम्बन्धित राज्यमा जातीय ध्रुवीकरण तीव्र हुनेछ, जुन जातको नाममा राज्य उत्पत्ति गराइन्छ त्यसको मपाईंत्व बढ्न सक्छ, तिनको मपाईंत्व बढ्दा बाँकी सबै जातीय समुदायको भावनामा धक्का पुग्यो भने त्यसलाई अस्वाभाविक मान्न सकिन्न ।

जनजातीय समुदाय शैक्षिक र आर्थिक दृष्टिले अलिक बढी पिछडिएका अवश्य हुन् । दक्षिण अफ्रिकामा जस्तो हामीकहाँ संविधान र कानुनले जातीय विभेद गरेको थिएन । नेपालमा राजनीतिक, संवैधानिक र कानुनीभन्दा पनि सामाजिक समस्याको रूपमा यो रहेको हो । २००७ सालमा प्रजातन्त्र स्थापना भएयताका आधा शताब्दीमा जातिभेदको सोच क्रमशः निरुत्साहित हुँदै गएको र समतामूलक समाज निर्णयको अवधारणा विस्तारित भइरहेको थियो । राणाशासनको पतनपश्चात् प्रजातान्त्रिक मात्र होइन पञ्चायती कालखण्डमा पनि जातिभेद निरुत्साहित भइरह्यो ।

राजनीतिमा माओवादीको जबर्जस्ती प्रभाव विस्तार हुनुअघिसम्म नेपालमा जाति या क्षेत्रवादी सोचलाई नाजायज, अनुपयुक्त र राष्ट्रविरोधी मानिन्थ्यो, मानिसहरू त्यस्तो सोचको निन्दा र भत्र्सना गर्दथे । जातीय भावना जगाएर होइन त्यसलाई क्रमशः घटाएर अर्थात् जातीय ‘फ्युजन’ गराएर समतामूलक समाज स्थापना गर्न सकिन्छ भन्ने विश्वास त्यसबेला थियो । तर, माओवादीले हिंसात्मक सङ्घर्षको सुरुवात गरेयता उनीहरूले जातीय आन्दोलनलाई प्रोत्साहित गरे ।

विश्वको एक मात्र सनातनी हिन्दू राष्ट्रका रूपमा रहेको नेपालमा इसाईकरकणका निम्ति ‘सिकारअघिको मुद्रामा बसेको बाघ’झैं नेपालको हिन्दू पहिचान मेट्ने मौका पर्खेर बसिरहेका केही युरोपेली मुलुकले माओवादी आन्दोलनको बुई चढेर आफ्नो अभीष्ट पूरा गर्न चाहे । माओवादीले आफ्नो पिठ्युँ इसाईहरूको जिम्मा लगाए, उनीहरू माओवादीको त्यही पिठ्युँमा चढेर नेपाललाई क्षतविक्षत पार्न सक्रिय देखिएका छन् ।

इसाईकरणका निम्ति राजदरबार बाधक बनेको कुरा सत्य थियो । ०५९ सालमा तात्कालिक राजालाई एक पत्र पठाएर ब्रिटेनले इसाईहरूलाई दुःख नदिन र धर्मप्रचारमा अवरोध पैदा नगर्न चेतावनी दिँदा राजतन्त्र अन्त्यका निम्ति इसाईहरू सक्रिय रहने अनुमान जानकारहरूले त्यतिबेलै गरेका थिए । अरू कस–कसलाई आफ्नो अभीष्ट पूर्तिमा राजसंस्था बाधक बनेका थिए ती सबै राजाका विरुद्ध क्रियाशील रहनु स्वाभाविक थियो ।

सत्ता राजनीतिमा हात बढाएर तात्कालिक राजा स्वयमले पनि आफ्नाविरुद्धको अभियानमा इन्धन आपूर्ति गराएका हुन् । त्यसबेला काङ्ग्रेसले प्रजातन्त्रको संस्थागत विकासमा राजा बाधक रहेको ठान्यो, माओवादी र अन्य वामपन्थी कम्युनिस्टहरूको उत्पादनमा राजा–महाराजको जतिसुकै ठूलो योगदान रहेको भए पनि गणतन्त्रको सिद्धान्त पढेका उनीहरू गुन र नुनको सोझो गर्दै राजाको सुरक्षाकवच बन्न असम्भव थियो । त्यसैले काङ्ग्रेस, छिमेकी मित्रराष्ट्र भारत र बहुदलीय प्रजातन्त्रको विरुद्ध गीत गाउँदै आफूलाई दीक्षित तुल्याउने क्रान्तिकारीहरू चाहेर या नचाहेर पनि गणतन्त्रकै पक्षमा लामबद्ध हुनुपथ्र्यो, भइदिए ।

नेपालको राष्ट्रिय एकता, सामाजिक सद्भाव र एकतालाई आफ्नो स्वार्थमा बाधक ठान्ने विदेशी शक्तिहरूको पनि पहिलो निशाना राजदरबार नै बनेको हो । ०६३ सालमा ‘लोकतन्त्र’ स्थापनापश्चात् राजसंस्था विस्थापनको ढोका खोलियो र ०६५ मा गणतन्त्र घोषणा गरियो । राजतन्त्र अन्त्यको घोषणालगत्तै जातीय र क्षेत्रीय मुद्दाहरूलाई घनीभूत रूपमा उठाउन थालियो । मधेसी र जनजाति समुदायलाई एकै ठाउँमा उभ्याउन इसाईलगायत अन्य अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय शक्तिकेन्द्रहरूको ध्यान नेपालमा केन्द्रित हुन थाल्यो ।

मधेसी, जनजाति, दलित, महिलालगायतका समुदाय पिछडिएका हुनाले तिनलाई मूलधारमा ल्याइनुपर्छ भन्दा त्यसमा विमति जनाउनुपर्ने कारण र अवस्था थिएन । तर, त्यसरी विभिन्न समुदायलाई माथि उठाउने भनिए तापनि मधेसी र जनजातिबीचको एकता अभिवृद्धिमा बेग्लै र विशेष जोड दिन थालिएको थियो । क्षत्री, ब्राह्मण, ठकुरी, दशनामीलगायतका राष्ट्रवादी समुदायलाई कमजोर नपारीकन इसाईकरणले तीव्र गति लिन नसक्ने अवस्था रहेको ठान्नेहरू र आर्यमूलका पहाडी समुदायलाई ध्वस्त पारेपछि मात्र आफ्नोअनुकूलको परिस्थिति निर्माण गर्न सकिन्छ भन्ने विश्वासमा रहेको मधेसी समुदायबीचको समान धारणालाई स्वागत गर्ने काम काङ्ग्रेस र एमालेलगायतका राष्ट्रिय राजनीतिक दलका नेताहरूले आर्थिकभन्दा पनि क्रान्तिकारी बन्ने प्रलोभनमा परेर गरे ।

राष्ट्रियता र राष्ट्रिय एकताको मेरुदण्डको रूपमा रहेका खास–खास जातीय समुदायलाई मूलप्रवाहबाट दरकिनार गर्न पछिल्ला वर्षहरूमा निकै ठूला प्रयास हुँदै आएका छन् । काङ्ग्रेस र एमालेमा रहेका कथित ब्राह्मण–क्षत्री नेताहरूले अदृश्य शक्तिको आकाङ्क्षा क्रमशः परिपूर्ति गर्दै गए । यतिबेला राजनीतिक रूपले राष्ट्रिय राजनीतिक दलको हैसियतमा रहेका काङ्ग्रेस, एमाले र जातीय रूपमा क्षत्री–ब्राह्मणलाई ध्वस्त बनाउने रणनीतिक योजनाअनुरूपका गतिविधिलाई तीव्रता दिइएको छ । एक समय राजसंस्थालाई जे–जस्ता पक्षमा बाधक ठानिएको थियो, अहिले ठीक त्यसैगरी आफ्नो मार्गमा राजनीतिक रूपले काङ्ग्रेस–एमाले र जातीय रूपमा क्षत्री–ब्राह्मण बाधक बनेको अर्थ लगाइँदै छ ।

राजनीतिमा जातीयताको प्रवेशले काङ्ग्रेस–एमालेजस्ता राष्ट्रिय राजनीतिक दलहरूलाई भविष्यमा विलोप या विघटनको दिशामा लैजाने अनुमान गर्न सकिन्छ, तर खासखास जातीय समुदायलाई दरकिनार गर्नचाहिँ मधेसी र जनजातीय समूहलाई एकताबद्ध गरी लामै लडाइँ लड्नुपर्ने ठानिएको हुनसक्छ, सोही अवधारणाअनुरूपका गतिविधिहरू अहिले भइरहेका छन् । यसर्थ क्षत्री–ब्राह्मणलगायत राष्ट्रवादी समुदायका निम्ति आउँदा दिनहरू थप प्रतिकूल हुने देखिएको छ ।

यो मुलुक अस्तित्वमा आउनु नै गलत र अनुचित थियो भन्ने कसैको बुझाइ छ भने त्यस्ता सोच राख्नेहरूसँग बहस गरेर समय बर्बाद गर्नु व्यर्थ छ । विश्व मानचित्रमा नेपालको नक्सा सिर्जना भएकोमा गौरव गर्ने न्यूनतम मापदण्डका मानिससँग छलफल गर्ने हो भने सहमति र समझदारीका पर्याप्त आधारहरू भेट्न सकिन्छ । नेपालको निर्माणमा क्षत्रीहरूको अगुवाइ, मगर तथा गुरुङहरूको बलिदानीपूर्ण साथ र दलित तथा ब्राह्मणहरूको सहयोग उल्लेखनीय रूपमा रहेको छ । राई, लिम्बू र नेवार समुदायले पराजयलाई चुपचाप स्वीकार गर्दै त्यसको प्रतिरोध नगरेर नेपालको एकीकरण अभियानमा धेरै ठूलो गुन लगाएका हुन् । उनीहरूले प्रतिरोध गर्न चाहेका भए नेपालको एकीकरण अभियानमा गतिरोध पैदा हुने निश्चित थियो ।

आधुनिक नेपालको पूर्व मेचीदेखि पश्चिम महाकाली र हिमालदेखि तराईसम्म फैलिएर रहेका क्षत्री, ब्राह्मण, नेवार र दलित जातिहरू सामाजिक रूपमा राष्ट्रिय एकताको अदृश्य धागो बनेका छन् । राजनीतिक रूपमा ७५ वटै जिल्लामा आफ्नो सञ्जाल विस्तार गरेर काङ्ग्रेस र एमालेले पनि आफूहरूलाई राष्ट्रिय एकताको संयन्त्रकै रूपमा स्थापित गरेका छन् । तर, अब काङ्ग्रेस–एमालेबाट मधेसी र जनजातीय समुदायलाई भड्काइँदै छ या उनीहरू अलग हुन निहुँ खोज्दै छन् । काङ्ग्रेस र एमालेमा समेटिएका मधेसी तथा जनजातिहरूको कुनै पनि समय र कुनै पनि बहानामा बहिर्गमन हुने सम्भावना बढ्दो छ । त्यसपछि यी दलहरूमा ब्राह्मण–क्षत्री तथा अन्य सीमित जातिहरू मात्र बाँकी रहने छन्, जब कि ब्राह्मण–क्षत्रीलगायतका जातीय समुदाय पनि काङ्ग्रेस–एमालेका नेताहरूको भूमिका प्रति चरम असन्तुष्ट छन्, उनीहरूमाथि राष्ट्रघात र जातिघात गरेको आरोप लाग्न थालेको छ । जातीय पार्टी नै निर्माण गर्नुपर्ने अवस्था आयो भने काङ्गे्रस–एमालेका अधिकांश नेता आफ्नै जातीय समूहबाट बहिष्कृत हुनेछन् ।

जातीय आधारमा प्रदेशहरूको निर्माण भएमा यो मुलुक अनन्तकालसम्म विवाद, तनाव र द्वन्द्वमा फस्ने निश्चित छ । यसप्रकारको द्वन्द्वको मुख्य नाइके भएका छन्– प्रचण्ड । निजी महत्वाकाङ्क्षा परिपूर्ति गर्ने सिलसिलामा प्रचण्डले विगत १७ वर्षदेखि यस मुलुकलाई निकै सास्ती दिँदै आएका छन् । नेपालीको पहिचान मेटेर जातीय पहिचान स्थापित गराउने उनको प्रयास नेपालको विघटनसँग अन्तरसम्बन्धित छ । नेपालको मौलिक राष्ट्रिय पहिचानका यावत् तत्वलाई ‘डिलिट’ गराउँदै प्रचण्डले नयाँ नेपाल निर्माणको झाँसा दिएर मुलुकलाई जातीय द्वन्द्वको स्थितिमा पुर्‍याएका छन् । प्रचण्डबाट रचनात्मकता र सिर्जनशीलताको अपेक्षा त उनलाई चिन्नेहरू कसैले पनि गरेका थिएनन्, तर उनी यो हदसम्मका विध्वंशक र विनासकारी होलान् भन्ने कुराको जानकारीचाहिँ नेपालीले भर्खर मात्र पाउँदैछन् । मान्छेका शरीरबाट नाक, कान, आँखा, हात, गोडा आदिलाई भड्काएर कुखुराको कालो भाले खोज्ने बोक्सी या झाँक्रीझैं प्रचण्डले जाति–जातिलाई एक–अर्काविरुद्ध भड्काएर कस्तो ‘उपलब्धि’ हात लगाउन खोजेका हुन्, चिन्ताको विषय बनेको छ । खरानीको आवश्यकता पर्‍यो भन्दैमा घर जलाउने प्रचण्डमतिलाई ‘लालसलाम’ नै भन्नुपर्ने त होला नि ! (203) 

साभार: घटना र बिचार राष्ट्रिय साप्ताहिक

Nepal: How long we live with indignation, alien dependence and insult?

Madan Ragmi, Political Analyst (Courtesy: Telegraphnepal.com)

TGQ1: How you have been evaluating the current state of Nepali politics? Please tell us as to how the party leaders should have treated the people after the advent of the Republican order in Nepal?

Madan Regmi:  Well, we have both positive and negatives sides to it. The political practices that have been taking place after the advent of the Republican order are not a correct one in itself. The structure is itself an incorrect one. There is not even a single constitutional expert housed in the entire Constituent Assembly. The whole practices of the current CA body are not in the prime national interests of the nation.  The dwindling conduct of politics of the past four years complicated the politics even more.  It created a situation of community-caste conflict, likely disintegration of the nation-state and more so of a dangerous financial slide.

The past four years should have in essence strengthened the people of the country, the nation’s stamina should have gone up but that was not forthcoming. To recall, the nation began taking a downward trend immediately after the signing of the Sugauli Treaty, 1816, on matters of Nepal’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and national independence , which, in other words to explain, did not stop instead it took a further slither over these recent years. These three pillars began visibly to take a downward trend. 

Frankly speaking, we have yet not freed ourselves from the clutches of the Indian expansionism and British imperialism. It remains intact.  Let me tell you that our motherland Nepal was the single country in the South Asian region which was the most competent and strongest among all the countries in existence then now at the moment remains in the grip of the expansionist India which is nothing more but a creation of the British Imperialism. India’s direct or indirect domineering interference still continues. We are living under such a tragic situation. Now you yourself think of the political situation as to how it could have been? 

I told you earlier that after the Treaty of Sugauli, the rulers of Nepal since then, save Jung Bahadur, could not remain loyal and honest towards the national interests and pride. For instance, if, for example, any particular leader is 10 to 20 percent honest for the cause of the nation then yet he is excessively serving the interests of the Expansionists and the Imperialists. In the long and chequered Nepali history, many nationalists did turn up to rule this country but have had to quit the power structure simply because they have had little of support from the population because of the dearth of the presence of the nationalists. 

Even as of today, I can’t take the Nepali leaders ruling the country as the real Nepalese. I am forced to take them all, save a few, as the brokers of the foreigners or say alien powers. That is why there is no room or space for the Nepalese to expect something substantial from them to the country and its population.

If anything is to be done and could be done then it is only ‘by the people’. It is also the prime job of the nationalists housed in various parties. Today’s main job for us all is to free this nation from foreign dependence and to restore the lost pride, glory, and the integrity of the nation in order to make Nepal a completely sovereign and independent nation-state. This demands that a sizeable chunk of the nationalists must sacrifice for the accomplishment of this national cause. We must in effect fight a people’s war with the Indian expansionism.  Or else, we will be destroyed. However, we have two options left with us either to remain as a second class citizen-slave in our own motherland under the umbrella of the imperialists and the expansionists or save the country by defeating the enemies-the expansionists and the imperialists. This is the time that we must come to a conclusion. Earlier the better.

TGQ2: You talked of expansionism and imperialism, however, there have been talks also now in prevalence for restoring our territories lost after the treaty of Sugauli and the idea of a Greater Nepal is also under discussion which is gaining momentum of late? What say you of these talks?

Madan Regmi: I would prefer to use the word ‘geographical’ in place of ‘greater’ because it would be a fitting expression. When you talk of greater Nepal, it at times may give a message that we want to encroach upon other’s land by extending our territories. All that we have been longing for is the restoration of the lost Nepali territories, for example, Darjeeling, Kumau, Garhwal, Dehradun and the territories around the bank of river Ganges which we lost after signing the treaty of Sugauli. This means that we want to have our land which is in the Indian occupation currently, for example, SIWAN district, the border in between the Ganges and Dehradun, and beginning Gorakhpur to the South of Chiswanghat. And also in addition, the border of then Awadh state which was up to Gomati River is our territory. We just want to have our territories back with us. This could be done as accomplished by China while restoring Hongkong and Macau only recently. We deserve this right even as of today to restore our lost land.

I now tell you a very interesting story based on historical facts.

During the rule of Mahendra Malla, he once traveled to the South of his territory; he constructed a huge Lord Shiva temple near the village of Mehedar which is just five kilometers ahead of Chiswanghat, close to the banks of the river Ganges. He named this Temple as Mahendra Nath and also constructed one huge pond. Each year, people throng to this temple even as of today. It has already become a pilgrim site. In this area, the Nepalese still remain in good strength which is inhabited by the Rais, Limbus, Brahmins, Chettris and also Newars. All these lands in effect belong to Nepal. Question thus again remains as to whether we want to regain our lost lands exhibiting our bravery or sit idle like a coward? Today we have just become like a corpse which is alive only to inhale air. How long should we live with such indignation, foreign dependence and insult? Mind it the Koreans and the Vietnamese chased the Americans from their soil. Cuba is yet another example which stands tall with profound pride and glory. Cuba challenged the United States. They all shed blood in order to preserve the independence and glory of their respective nations.

TGQ3: Comparatively speaking, India is a mighty power. With this in background, how could Nepal fight a war with India to regain our lost territories?

Madan Regmi:  To tell you honestly, the country called India is a bogus one.  It is just a structure which is the inheritor of the British Imperialism handed over to them by the British. At present, many smaller South Asian which are under the Indian grip were all in an annoyed mood.  Some even are protesting against the Indian hegemony. For example, much ahead of the British invasion of South Asia, there were independent States in existence, for example, the Marhattas, the Sikhs, the Tamils, Oddisa, Nagas, Muslims and Bodo.  You may have already noticed that it is the single country in the world with two names: India and Bharat. No where one could find this strange phenomenon. They don’t have any common language. The so called Hindi speaking population in India has a very negligible percentage. To recall, the Maha Rastra which is in itself a big country with great strength doesn’t even allow to hang the sign/display boards in Hindi language. If you happen to visit Bengal, Oddisa and Tamilnadu, you will discover that the local population there even do not take themselves as Indian nationals.  Nor do they speak the Hindi language. If you go to Andman, Nicobar Island and Goa, the local citizens openly claim that one fine morning they will free themselves from India and become an independent state.

The movement for Sikh Independence is still alive and kicking. Recall, how the Indira Gandhi regime pounced upon the holy shrine of the Sikhs, the Golden temple, and caused damage to the temple and hurt the sentiments of Sikh population which resulted in her own death ultimately. 

TGQ4: If it is so then how the Indian nation is still surviving?

Madan Regmi: Some 3 to 4 tactical methods have been brought into practice in order to keep the survival of this nation intact.  Those are “exploitation”, criminalization, suppression and corruption and creating divisions among various communities. At the moment, some eighty percent of the Indian population remain below the poverty line. Only 29% of the Indian population gets a chance to have the meal once a day. Each year several hundred of thousands Indian national become the victim of State led violence. The poorest of all perhaps live in this country wherein in the last three decades; the acts of Rape have gone up by 900 percent. Let me now quote one of the distinguished Indian national who was once the Justice serving the Supreme Court of India and who later became the Chairman of the Press Council of India. He was Markandey Katzu (Reuters November 10, 2011). Cutting a joke at the trend of the Indian national newspapers, Katzu had said that the papers in India focus more on the lifestyle of the Indian Cinema actors, write about fashion shows and disseminate news of Cricket plays instead of concentrating their efforts in speaking/writing in favor of the population whose 80% live in appalling poverty, rising unemployment, bearing the brunt of price hike and lack of medical facilities. This does speak as to how the Indian authorities and the papers were in India.

TGQ5: Under the prevailing circumstance, tell us how to restore our lands from Indian occupation?

Madan Regmi: For that we should remain in an alert state. We should then study the whole context. Unfortunately, the attention of the population has got diverted from this issue. We have been forced not to understand our problems and issues. The state authorities in association with the information tools have been making us to feel that we were the most inferior persons on earth.  Add to this their cheating exercises. We have some leaders who just would have to utter that Nepal has no existence at all. They at times say that why small nations like Nepal need a military structure at all which has been sandwiched in between two Asian giants? Can we afford war with these giants?  In my opinion, these were slaves and fools of the highest order. They have no knowledge of Nepal’s glorious historical past. I would remind you that we-read Nepal-fought wars with these two great powers. We also fought a war with China but we were not defeated by the Chinese. This war finally landed up in a truce and a treaty was signed and the Chinese returned back to their lands. Later we fought two years long war with the United Kingdom which had by then invaded almost half the globe wherein it was stated then that the Sun never sets in the British Empire. We had won at three fronts in this war with the UK. There was no possibility of the British winning over Nepal. The UK had lost its distinguished Generals like Gilespy who had to embrace death at the Nalapani battle. And interestingly, the British soldiers used to avoid meeting the brave Nepali Gorkha soldiers when in small numbers fearing death. Many of their soldiers fled from the battlegrounds. Even the English historians have put in record and have said that “these Nepali Gorkha soldiers are no less brave than our own soldiers. “We used to claim that we were the best soldiers in the world, however, the fact is that these Nepali Gorkha soldiers were the bravest of all in the world”, this is what they have put on record in history. But unfortunately, the soldiers who had already taken over the three fronts miscalculated the strength of the advancing battalion led by Colonel Ochtorlony which coincided with the conspiracies hatched by some eight Royal courtiers which facilitated Gajraj Mishra and Chandra Shekhar Upadhyaya-Dahal to seduce the then King and Queen under a conspiracy which was to force the Nepali Royalty to yield to the British. Even the bravest of all Bhimsen Thapa could not understand this plot.  This led even the world acclaimed Nepali fighter, Amar Singh Thapa-the Hannibal of Asia, to sign the insulting and humiliating Sugauli Treaty.  This is the first ever case in the history wherein an insulting treaty had to be signed by the soldiers which had captured all the three war fronts and unfortunately have had to be pushed back in a mere front. The English historians too have written about this unfortunate incident which went not in favor of Nepal. Nepal still had the valor and vigor to conquer several Nalapanis, Jaitak, Bharatpur and Devantal and hence there was no need to sign the Treaty of Sugauli. The English historians have written that the British war on Nepal had to be waged simply because she had to exhibit its power influence in the entire South Asia.

Had we the technical knowhow then we would have become one of the major powers in Asia. This is our live history. We are even today the same brave Nepalese who never feared death. The blood remains the same. The only difference has been that the foreign brokers have been making us dependent on others and injecting inferiority complex in our brains.

You just said how to fight to regain our lands. I ask you instead can you show me even a single example whether India has fought any war without sending the Gorkha soldiers in the frontline of the war front? This applies with the British as well. It is a matter of shame to fight for others. This could never be a matter of pride for the Nepalese. We fought several world wars and received victory medals. But those wars which were fought by the Nepalese for others possess no meaning at all. Mind it that the unification efforts made by Yalambar, Anshu Varma, Pratap Malla and Prithivi Narayan Shah have its own kind of values. We belonging to various caste, tribes and ethnicity with differing culture and traditions from across the nation collectively made this nation-state. We thus created a Himali/Nepali culture which was an advanced one.  We all remained glued together while forming and running the nation. In this background, we should once again remain in a collective state in order to save the nation. Let’s not talk of splitting the nation instead allowing it to remain in a solid and united form.  If we collectively work together and save the nation then we can regain our past glory brought into existence by our ancestors. Lord Buddha was son of this soil. Thus we are committed to peace and concurrently preparing ourselves for a war with the enemy though the effort remains in a dormant state.  Mind it that a war is fought not with the weapons but with the courage and valor.

Text courtesy: The Greater Nepal Weekly dated May 18, 2012. Thanks.

Nepal: India hell bent on weakening Nepali territorial integrity and sovereignty

Rajkumar Siwakoti, Advocate 
(Courtesy: Telegraphnepal.com)

Rajkumar Siwakoti, originally hails from Morang district of eastern Nepal, and is a social activist. Now in Kathmandu, Siwakoti has completed Bachelors in Law (BL) and also has received Masters Degree in Social Anthropology from Tribhuvan University (TU), Kathmandu.

He is one of the general members of Nepal Bar Association and has been engaged in several research activities on social, political and legal issues.

Sujit Mainali for The Telegraph Weekly and its online edition telegraphnepal.com talked to this bubbling lawyer on several aspects of Nepal's politics. Below the excerpts of his exclusive interview: Chief Editor.

TQ1. How do you analyze the saying of S.D. Mehta- the consul for political affairs at the Birganj Consulate Office, who had reportedly provoked some leaders from Nepal’s Madhesh to bring in a sort of political blizzard in entire the Madhesh much ahead of May 27, 2012?

Siwakoti: I out rightly ridicule the provocative remarks of Mr. Mehta. His behavior has breached the norms, values and universally accepted code of conduct of the diplomats. The way the Indian diplomat poked nose into the internal affairs of Nepal has exhibited that India doesn't want to accept Nepal as a sovereign nation. This is a very unfortunate situation.

TQ2. During the absence of Chinese Ambassador, Indian diplomats are overly maneuvering and trying to exploit from the fragile political situation of Nepal. Is this a mere coincidence or something else?

Siwakoti: We should be clear that China does not have any interest in the internal affairs of Nepal. Beijing wants Free Tibet campaign to be earnestly curbed from the Nepali soil. If this is ensured, this is perhaps sufficient for Beijing. But New Delhi has been dictating Kathmandu's political affairs since 60 years or so. The continuation of this unwarranted behavior has revealed that India is hell bent on weakening the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Nepal.

Media report published some days ago had revealed that Indian Ambassador Mr. Jayant Prasad had facilitated, May 2, 2012, the major political parties of Nepal to reach a consensus to form 11 federal provinces. Now, another diplomat from the same country is trying to provoke Madhesh against the recently reached agreement. Don’t you think it to be an insane act? India is playing double in Nepal. I suspect that India is aiming at creating protracted instability in our country. 

Or else why its diplomats should try to penetrate on all possible fronts of Nepal? Why they play double so often? India wants to control Nepal's sovereignty and desires to impose its so-called supremacy upon us. New Delhi is still not ready to treat Nepal at par on reciprocal basis as it should have been.

This event has reminded me of Sardar Ballav Bhai Patel who in a letter to the then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had told the former to forcefully make Nepal a part of the Indian union reiterating that significance of Nepal to India was very much similar to that of the security of Tibet to Beijing. Time has changed, but the psyche of the Indian officials has remained unchanged. Indian officials are still guided by the imperial British Colonial mindset.  Very sorry to say this.

TQ3. Mr. Siwakoti, what India will achieve by promoting/nurturing instability in Nepal?

Siwakoti: Indian officials' activities towards Nepal are guided with hegemonic intent. They want to keep Nepal under their firm grip. Frankly speaking, up to some extent they have succeeded in this regard. But at the same time, the hegemonic policy of New Delhi has badly damaged the image of India among Nepali population. India's soft power in Nepal is gradually getting eroded.

The instability of Nepal will negatively impact the prosperity of the adjoining northern India in the long run. Its spillover effect will trigger unrest along the border areas of India. It will ignite the sensitive heterogonous demography of India and may invite grand upheavals' inside there.

Apart from this, the third countries will get favorable opportunities to speed up their maneuvering in Kathmandu if Nepal is engulfed into political fluidity. This will limit the grand say of New Delhi. India need to realize this fact and should immediately formulate new policy recognizing the ground realities and act accordingly to meet the expectation and aspirations of the Nepali population. This will benefit both nations.

TQ4: Can you name some third countries who will try to foster their maneuvering if our country becomes more unstable?

Siwakoti: US, some European nations, Pakistan and of course, China will increase their activities in an unstable Nepal.

TQ5: What will be their respective interests? Your comments please.

Siwakoti: The US and some European nations believe that unstable Nepal can provide them with favorable ground to support the Free Tibetan activities from the Nepali soil. China in turn, will tighten its belt to contain the influence of Western countries in Nepal in order to safeguard its soft southern underbelly, Tibet. Beijing, in that eventuality, will remain in an alarmed state not only in the northern belt of Nepal, but also in the southern belt in order to protect its political and security related interests in the whole region. In that situation, Pakistan also will try to tease India from Nepal on the issues related to the Kashmir.

Apart from this, the ultimate aim of the third nations will be to bring the resources of Nepal under their control. They want to expand and impose their business, technology, idea and philosophy in this strategically significant Himalayan nation.

TQ6: The loose alliance between Madheshi and different ethnic groups has foiled the attempt of major parties of Nepal to carve out 11 states for the upcoming federal setup. What message this event has ventilated? Do you have any idea?

Siwakoti: If you see this event from the post-modern lenses, you can see that the center is gradually getting eroded and is losing its strength to dictate, guide and fulfill the aspiration of the periphery and marginalized sectors. Power centers of the Center including national political parties and the security agencies are gradually losing their monopoly to exercise the political and military authority. Regional and ethnic groups are gaining in strength and stamina. Right now also, they are in a position to challenge the central authority in a collective manner. 

The most loud and clear message ventilated by the foiling of idea of having 11 federal States is that, the constitution will not be drafted on the stipulated time i.e. May 27, 2012. At least I am convinced on this.

TQ7: Can you suggest a model of federalism which you think will suit our country?

Siwakoti: The Unified Maoists advocated the form of restructuring of the state and federalism in an immature manner due to which perilous crisis is approaching closer. The idea advocated by the Maoist was not clear, yet it successfully galvanized the ethnic and marginalized population and gained their sympathies. The Maoists nurtured the idea of ethnicity, nationality and right to self determination without considering the existing psychology of our society; the geography, geostrategic and geopolitical reality of our nation; and the changing regional and global power politics. In the coming days, whole Nepali population will have to bear the brunt created by the juvenility of the Maoists. Its symptoms have begun surfacing.

If the essence of the decentralization is followed in a creative and effective manner and local bodies are empowered with excessive rights, it can address the aspiration of whole Nepali population. The Interim Constitution of Nepal has already declared that Nepal will adopt a federal order, and hence, no point is left to negate the idea of federalism. But while creating the federal structure, we need to be sure that each federal unit must be stretched from the south to the northern frontier of our nation. To be more precise, if each development region of Nepal is made a separate federal unit, it will benefit Nepal a lot.

TQ8: The activists of Brahmin and Chhetri community have accused UN, US and the European Union (EU) for fueling ethnic animosity among Nepali population. Mr. Siwakoti, do you agree with them?

Siwakoti: Up to some extent, their assessment is correct. Agencies of the UN, US and EU, including other donor agencies’ funding campaign with anti-state and anti-social structure is in an overwhelming manner. Their funding is largely concentrated on making non-state actors stronger. The Brahmin and Chhetri community might have considered this fact and may have made such accusations.

Exclusive for telegraphnepal.com

A Week in Delhi

By Dipak Gyawali

I spent all of last week in Delhi as honorary Mekong citizen helping bring together for the first time ever colleagues of the Mekong and the Ganga to discuss experiences in water management and regional cooperation. It also became a good opportunity for me to meet old friends and India’s leading cognoscenti – academics, former diplomats, bureaucrats, journalists and politicians – on the side to discuss Nepal and its current travails. I conclude that, barring a few arrogant exceptions, there still remains tremendous goodwill in India for Nepal. However, most are quite ignorant of what is really happening in Nepal, those who do know something are confused, while those who follow events here really closely are quite disappointed that Loktantra has come to such a sorry pass and its politicians have turned out to be such a vile lot. Strangely, most Indians, even the modernists, privately say (much more than Nepalis generally) that Nepal should not have been declared secular and should have preserved its identity as the world’s only Hindu country. They get quite upset when reminded that it was their own “Yechuri Path” imposed on Nepal that has brought about the current instability and more to come in the days ahead.

Their composite questions and my equally composite answers were as follows.

Q: Everything is fine in Nepal now, no?

DG: Quite the contrary, politically everything is in a total mess. Previously it might have been called a “royal mess”; now it should be called a “loktantrick mess”.

Q: We never knew this. Why have Indian papers and the media not reported this?

DG: Because, for a democracy, Indian media’s due diligence on the neighbourhood is extraordinarily self-centered, lazy and lies in practicing what we call “handout journalism”, i.e. reproducing press briefings instead of attempting to go behind the stories to inform the Indian public as well as politicians. Also with its corporatization since the 1990s, its owners know on which side their bread is buttered and hence toe the official line much better than even bureaucrats. In contrast to their silence on literally burning issues today that would eventually impact India too, when the king was being demonized in 2005, stories of even obscure ‘royal relatives’ not paying their electricity bills were emblazoned across their pages.

Q: But has not Baburam recently formed a consensus government?

DG: That myth is the media’s cruel joke. The UML has stayed out as have several Madhisey factions. The powerful Vaidya faction of the Maoists is out on a warpath against Baburam and the Deuba and KB Gurung faction of the Kangress too are seething against the Sushil Koirala establishment for giving up the BP Koirala line and kow-towing to disreputable foreign agency implants. This government is not even complete, is full of discredited faces, and if times were normal would lose a vote of confidence in the parliament.

Q: Will they produce a constitution by May 28?

DG: Not a snowball’s chance in hell. They may produce a sheaf of papers that may facetiously be called a ‘constitution’ (which five law students can produce in a week); but that will be done by violating the procedures and provisions of the interim constitution regarding public consultations and without coming to an agreement on its basic framework. It won’t be a “peoples’ constitution” or even a workable one. Since it will be burned immediately in the streets and within the house as well, there is talk of imposing an emergency to promulgate it. Some democracy that will be!

Q: Why? We hear Nepali leaders coming to Delhi saying it will be produced and promulgated at all costs (“jaise bhi”) by the deadline.

DG: Nothing should or can be done “jaise bhi”: it should be done right, that is ”theek se”. The big parties in the CA cannot agree on the basics of the political framework of tomorrow’s Nepal because they hold very divergent political philosophies. Because the regime change of 2006 was externally inspired, talks of ethnic federalism, secularism, republicanism, forms of governance and the electoral system etc. have all turned out to be poorly thought through adventurism with little connection to Nepali needs or ground realities.

Q: But did not the Nepali people vote these parties to power in April 2008?

DG: Yes, in a manner of speaking, but how? The Maoists still had the guns; they and the Kangress-UML combine did not even allow former prime minister Surya Bahadur Thapa to go to his constituency, to say nothing of other politicians holding different views; those elections were instead fought for “sadak, bijuli and pani”; the party manifestos never spoke of republicanism, secularism or federalism; the motion to declare Nepal a federal, secular republic was tabled by a home minister who was not even a member of the house; and no debate was allowed in parliament on this motion before the voting! The Supreme Soviet was probably as democratic a rubber stamp as this Constituent Assembly! And to top it all, their elected mandate of two years ran out in April 2010. The current of MPs are but mere illegitimate squatters.

Q: Is all this because China is very active in Nepal these days?

DG: Hardly! The Chinese ambassador has been absent from his post and on holidays in China for the last month: the Indian ambassador is sitting in the prime minister’s residence and summoning other party leaders for discussions with Baburam, reminding Nepalis of the terrible years of the 1950s under Matrika Koirala. In reality, the Indians are over-active while the Chinese are merely reactive: it is Indian political and diplomatic blunders that seem to be assuring the Chinese their lottery wins in Nepal.

Q: How can you say that? Look, Chinese projects such as West Seti are pushed forward while Indian ones are languishing in limbo. Is it not due to anti-Indianism in Nepal?

DG: You conveniently forget a fundamental difference. The previous version of West Seti as well as those such as Karnali and Arun-3 acquired by Indian companies following the Mughlani-inspired regime change in Nepal (and counter-inspiring continuing protests and litigation here) was meant for export to India even as Nepal reels under eighteen hours of power cuts a day. In Nepal we call that a “neo-colonial mode of development”, a continuation of the Mughlani British Raj policies. In contrast, the new version of West Seti to be developed by China’s Three Gorges is meant for ameliorating Nepal’s power shortage. If you were a Nepali electricity consumer reeling under severe power cuts, seeing all of this, would you be pro-Indian or pro-Chinese?

Q: Still, we sense anti-Indian sentiments being quite rife in Nepal. Why?

DG: The very expression “anti-Indianism” is a bit of an intellectual cop-out. If being pro-Nepal or pro-Bangladesh makes one automatically anti-Indian, it really behooves my dear Indian friends to introspect and reflect over what “Indianism” really means that seems to make the neighbourhood so “anti”. None of India’s neighbours I know really have any bad feelings about Bollywood, Gandhi the Mahatma, Tagore or even India’s double-digit growth. This means that the time has come for Mughlani Babudom as well as Indian well-wishers of Nepal to reflect on why sentiments against India are so high now after Loktantra and never quite that bad when there was monarchy in Nepal.

Q: Will the king come back?

DG: If you were Gyanendra, would you want to come back and handle the mess which is many times worse now than when he left? When he tried, OK in his own ham-handed way, to get a parliament elected after it had been prematurely dissolved by party infighting and to bring the Maoist insurgency (sheltering in Noida, let us not forget!) to heel, you chose to strangle the Nepal army and support the Maoists with the feckless party leaders in tow. They are still feckless, corrupt, incompetent, without a democratic atom in all their bodies, and have made a mess of Nepal’s administration; but they rule roost now. I am one who believes that Nepal’s head-of-state has to be above partisan politics and should not be brought under competitive electoral politics. Hence the need for a constitutional monarchy symbolizing the tradition of Prithvi Narayan Shah’s “flower garden nationalism” versus the ethno-Stalinist model unleashed by the Maoists today. However, if I were assigned the task of convincing Gyanendra to come back and take over, I don’t think I would succeed.

Courtesy: http://www.spotlightnepal.com/Opinion.aspx?ArticleID=3340&IssueID=48

Should India Fear China’s Navy?

By Iskander Rehman

One of the more enduring aspects of Indian strategic culture is a strong sense of maritime embattlement. Shortly after independence, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru famously attributed India’s past woes at the hands of predatory colonial powers to its maritime weaknesses. During the Cold War, Indian strategists would fret over the potential mushrooming of American submarine pens in Diego Garcia, or over the possible reiteration of the 1971 USS Enterprise incident, when the United States dispatched a carrier task group to the Bay of Bengal in a singularly blunt exercise of naval suasion. More than forty years later, the U.S. presence in the Indian Ocean is no longer viewed by most Indians as a threat. Another, more menacing extra-regional power has stepped in to fill the void, and, in so doing, has ensured the continued survival of the maritime embattlement narrative.

Indeed, a first time traveler to India could be forgiven for believing that India is on the verge of being subjected to a sudden wave of Chinese amphibious landings. Sensationalistic press reports on China's so-called “string of pearls” abound, and wild stories on secret PLAN submarine bases in the Maldives, or large bases on Burmese islands, are commonplace. In reality, most of China’s ventures in places such as Chittagong, in Bangladesh, or Hambantota, in Sri Lanka, appear to be, for the time being at least, primarily economic in nature. Moreover, Indian observers tend to neglect the profoundly nationalistic pride these projects tend to foster within the host countries themselves.

Last year, after having meandered through the organized chaos of Hambantota, I interviewed the Sri Lankan Ports Authority Manager on site. After enquiring whether Chinese military vessels might, in the future, obtain preferential berthing rights, I was subjected to a withering tirade on the inappropriate nature of my query. While the funding may be in large part Chinese, the port itself is strictly Sri Lankan, I was sternly informed, and acted as a powerful symbol of a reunified country’s future economic potential. (The port is, in fact, named the Mahinda Rajapaksa Port, in honor of Sri Lanka’s president, whose grinning, mustachioed face is a ubiquitous presence throughout the country, from billboard to bank note.)

While one can’t discount the possibility in the future that these nodes may acquire a more overtly military dimension, the relentless onslaught of Indian media attention on the “String of Pearls” has created an unfortunate, and rather paradoxical, effect. First of all, it renders the debate over the nature of China’s future naval presence in the Indian Ocean somewhat less intelligible and more inchoate. Second, it makes it seem as though the Indian government’s attitude towards China’s alleged creeping expansionism is purely reactive and bereft of any clear strategic direction.

Let us imagine, thereby succumbing to the worst kind of strategic pessimism, that in the course of the next two decades China does move towards establishing some kind of a genuinely threatening naval presence in the Indian Ocean Region.

This could take several distinct forms:

-- A gradual upsurge in Chinese submarine incursions into the Indian Ocean, with the option of secretly forward deploying wolf packs of Chinese submarines in friendly deep-water ports such as Gwadar.

-- An extension of China's Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) complex from East to West in order to provide some form of a shore-based protective shield to its surface vessels or to target India’s ships and coastal infrastructure.

-- Simply by increasing the rotation and stationing of its naval assets-surface or subsurface – in the friendly pearls aforementioned.

If one, or all of these evolutions were to occur, would India be prepared for such a contingency? And more importantly, does the Indian Navy have some kind of a concrete, actionable China Strategy in place for the Indian Ocean?

It may.

But if it does, you will be hard pressed to find it outlined in detail in any of the official documents released by the Indian Navy over the past decade or so, whether it be the two iterations of its Maritime Doctrines (released in 2004 and 2009) or in its Maritime Strategy (published in 2007). All three documents are highly didactic in tone and somewhat aspirational in nature. Their goal, first and foremost, is to convince a traditionally continentalist and inward-looking Indian leadership of the virtues of Indian Seapower, not to lay out the battle plans for a potential future naval clash with the next great “Dragon Fleet.” Therefore, when China is mentioned, it is only in passing, with fleeting-albeit foreboding- references to “some nations’ attempts to gain a strategic toehold in the Indian Ocean Rim” or to “attempts by China to strategically encircle India.”

If one really wishes to get a better appreciation of how the Indian Navy plans for an upsurge in naval rivalry with Beijing, the best thing to do is to carefully parse the refreshingly sanguine words of India’s naval chiefs on the matter. By so doing, one can begin to discern the hazy silhouette of a nascent three-pronged strategy, or “strategic trident,” which could roughly be summarized as the following:

-- Leveraging India’s Natural Geographical Advantage

-- Developing an Asymmetrical Technological Edge

-- Moving towards greater Navy/Air Force Jointness in the Indian Ocean Region

A few years ago, the former Chief of Naval Staff Sureesh Mehta created quite a stir, when he gave a seminal speech at an Indian maritime think tank, the National Maritime Foundation, shortly before his departure from office. Admiral Mehta, in a very eloquently framed presentation, articulated some compelling arguments:

First, India shouldn’t seek to compete ship for ship with China – such an approach is futile and doomed to fail, due to the growing disparity in funding in-between both navies. Second, India should leverage its geographical advantage. In short, India will always retain a sizeable advantage over any incoming Chinese fleet in the Indian Ocean by virtue of its central position as an interior line power in the heart of the Indian Ocean, as well as its peninsular formation, which enables it to radiate airpower in an arc ranging from the Arabian Sea to the Malacca Straits. Any Chinese naval task force venturing into the Indian Ocean would therefore have to run a formidable gauntlet of combined Indian naval and shore-based airpower. Finally, India needed to focus on developing an asymmetric technological edge over its Chinese rival. New Delhi possesses an immense advantage over Beijing – in that it can import (nearly) all the weaponry it desires, and, unlike China, doesn’t have to contend with an EU arms embargo, U.S. rivalry or growing Russian unease.

India’s current Chief of Naval Staff, Nirmal Verma, has added grist to the strategy laid out by his predecessor by stressing the need to establish more “turnaround bases and naval air enclaves” within the region, and by accelerating the revamping of India's air bases in the Andaman and Nicobar islands, which Chinese strategists have portrayed as a potential “metal chain” that could lock them out of the Bay of Bengal in the event of a conflict with India.

As Sino-Indian rivalry spills out into the Indian Ocean, the maps of former, similarly conflict-ridden eras, are being pulled out of the attic of history, undusted, and made to overlap. Japan’s clever use of the Andaman and Nicobar archipelago as an unsinkable aircraft carrier during World War II is now being replicated by New Delhi, and World War II era airbases in places such as Kalaikunda, in West Midnapore, have been refurbished in order to host Indian Sukhoi-30 MKI squadrons, which can provide long-range air cover to naval forces operating in the Andaman Sea west of the Malacca Straits.

The same minute patches of paradise at the epicenter of Soviet-U.S. rivalry in the Indian Ocean Region during the Cold War, such as the Seychelles, now find themselves at the heart of a struggle for supremacy once more. Only this time it’s Beijing and New Delhi, Asia’s two rising naval powers, which are jostling for influence. Competition in the Indian Ocean is hardly a new phenomenon – the players may change, but the game remains uncannily similar. And indeed, while much attention has been lavished on China’s diplomatic forays into the Indian subcontinent’s maritime backyard, scant focus has been given to India’s own parallel efforts to establish strategically placed nodes of influence – such as the listening post it erected in 2007 in Madagascar, or the ties it is discreetly shoring up with other small island nations such as Mauritius.

As the Indian Navy’s attention gradually pivots away from Pakistan in order to focus increasingly on China, it will be instructive to note whether this is accompanied by a corresponding repositioning of its force structure. It may be premature to reliably ascertain whether this is the case, but certain signs definitely seem to point to a rebalancing. The Indian Navy's Eastern Command, for example, which has traditionally been neglected in favor of its Western, Pakistan-facing alter ego, is being considerably strengthened. The country’s small flotilla of nuclear submarines will also operate from an undisclosed location along the eastern seaboard.

Jointness, at this juncture, appears to form the missing link within the Indian Navy’s nascent China Strategy in the Indian Ocean. Indeed, if New Delhi wishes to truly leverage its inherent geographical advantage, it needs to be able to draw on both its naval aviation and shore-based airpower simultaneously rather than sequentially.

So far, unfortunately, the Indian Navy and Air Force have yet to demonstrate any genuine capacity – or desire – for operational synergy. In India’s defense, Navy/Air Force synchronization in maritime strike warfare is notoriously hard to achieve. Indeed, one could argue that the United States only really mastered such a level of operational jointness through the catalyzing experience of the first Gulf War. The Indian Navy and Air Force, however, appear to have demonstrated a singular degree of reluctance to pursue any kind of meaningful operational synergy. While both services have initiated joint training under the aegis of the TROPEX exercises annually held in the Bay of Bengal, they still prefer to coordinate – rather than to genuinely fuse – their combat exercises. The Indian Air Force and Naval aviation assets are thus provided with distinct, pre-designated “air corridors” in which to operate and respond to the instructions of their own service-specific commanders. This is indicative of a very rudimentary level of inter-service cooperation, which still prefers to opt for the traditional Indian “coordination” model over the exigencies born out of genuine bi-service synchrony.

What India needs is a truly transformational war fighting concept for the Indian Ocean, an “AirSea Battle concept with Indian characteristics,” which welds the three “prongs” of its thinking into a clear, actionable, China strategy for the Indian Ocean. Until then, expect more alarmist reports of hidden bases and nefarious plots.

Iskander Rehman is a Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington D.C.

Courtesy: The Diplomat.com

http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2012/05/17/should-india-fear-chinas-navy/

Using NGOs to coerce nations

By Sandhya Jain

Non-Western nations have long known that non-governmental organizations, ostensibly set up to provide humanitarian services to citizens in their respective countries, such as against police or other public authorities, fighting poverty or environmental degradation, are funded by foreign regimes to serve their agendas. They are in that sense a tool of coercive diplomacy, or war by other means.

Some weeks ago, Egypt, frontrunner of the aborted Arab Spring, clamped down on foreign NGOs and refused to license eight US civil groups, including the election-monitoring Carter Centre, prior to the presidential polls. Under Egyptian law, NGOs cannot operate without licences.

American NGOs, called quangos, tend to focus on promoting democracy abroad, an euphemism for electing governments that serve American interests. Last month, the UAE decided to shut down of the offices of an American quango run by the Democratic Party but mainly funded by the US government. Observers said the move was engineered by Riyadh and other capitals that felt the quango was active in their internal affairs, and hence urged the UAE to close it.

Many capitals view quangos as intrusive of national sovereignty. By grooming ‘democracy activists’ – recall the Coloured Revolutions in former Soviet republics – they create the environment for US-desired changes to occur. The decision by UAE and other Gulf countries to curtail the functioning of German and US foundations is likely to usher in a new system whereby entities directly or indirectly funded by foreign governments will be allowed to function only under negotiated agreements and can no longer operate as they please.

The National Endowment for Democracy, closely associated with the Reagan administration, was a conceived as a tool of US foreign policy by its founder Allen Weinstein, a former professor, Washington Post writer, and member of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a neoconservative think tank whose membership included Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. NED’s first director Carl Gershman was candid that it was a front for the CIA. From its inception in 1983, NED’s annual funds are approved by the US Congress as part of the United States Information Agency budget. Its activities include funding anti-left and anti-labour movements; meddling in elections in Venezuela and Haiti; and creating instability in countries resisting Imperial America.

Freedom House, set up in 1941 as a pro-democracy and pro-human rights organization, is engaged with the Project for the New American Century, and much of the warmongering in Washington. The Bush administration used it to support its ‘War on Terror’. The US government provides 66% of its funding via USAID, the State Department, and the NED. Freedom House leapt into the Arab Spring, training and financing civil society groups and individuals, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, and grassroots activists in Yemen.

The Bush administration also compelled NGOs to serve its imperial agenda. In 2003, USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios said the NGO-USAID link helped the Karzai regime to survive, but Afghans did not appreciate this. In Iraq, he wanted NGO work there to show a connection with US policy. It is difficult to be more explicit.

By far the most important tool of empire is Amnesty International. Its current Executive Director, Suzanne Nossel, was previously Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Organizations at the US State Department. She is credited with coining the term ‘smart power’ to achieve US goals by recruiting others to work for them, as in Libya, where Washington used the UN to engage in ‘humanitarian intervention.’

Amnesty actively joined the propaganda war against Syria. The author of a 2011 report on custody deaths in that country confessed in an interview that Amnesty had not been allowed to enter Syria at the time, so research for the report was done mainly from London, neighboring countries and other sources. In other words, unverified information.

In India, despite decades of unhappiness with Western NGOs, the Union Government decided to openly confront them only when it felt aggrieved over the stalling of its Rs. 15,000 crore Kudankulam nuclear power project in Tamil Nadu, and protests over genetically modified crops. Indian law bans NGOs from taking foreign funds for political purposes or affecting the security, strategic, scientific or economic interest of the State. The Church-organised Kudankulam protest was purely political.

Popular concerns over the power of NGOs, however, stem from their staggering funding, dubious agendas including religious conversion, and untrammelled powers to interfere in domestic matters. Data available with the Union Home Ministry, as reported first by The Pioneer, shows that in the nine years between 2001 and 2010, NGOs received more than Rs 70,000 crores. The highest donors were the US, Germany and Britain, and the most significant recipients include Gospel For Asia Inc, USA (Rs. 232.71 crore), Fundacion Vicente Ferrer, Barcelona, Spain (Rs.228.60 crore) and World Vision Global Centre, USA (Rs.197.62 crore).

Analysis of the data shows that the greatest sums out of the foreign contributions were utilized for establishment expenses (Rs. 1482.58 crore), followed by rural development (Rs. 944.30 crore), welfare of children (Rs. 742.42 crore), construction and maintenance of school/college (Rs.630.78 crore) and grant of stipend/ scholarship/ assistance in cash and kind to poor/deserving children (Rs. 454.70 crore). Note the diminishing values!

Now, if 50% to 70% of the funds of any organisation are spent on establishment expenses such as buying land, buildings, jeeps, office infrastructure, mobiles, laptops, cameras, salaries, consultancy fees, honorarium, and foreign travel, should such expenditure be tax-free when there is no public beneficiary?

Huge sums are expended on conversions, which also cannot be designated as ‘charity’ or ‘public service’. World Vision in particular has an exclusive Christian identity, as attested to by its own website, where it admits that while 20% of its worldwide staff belongs to other faiths, all prospective staff are expected to affirm their Christian faith in writing! This was after firing some staff in America for changing their religious affiliations.

In the light of these experiences, many Indians feel that the country does not need foreign aid to improve the lot of its citizens, and that all social service activities can be meaningfully conducted with local donations. As India herself provides considerable assistance to other Asian and African nations, there is no merit in accepting foreign funding on the pretext of charity, and then using the same for conversions or politics.

The author is Editor, www.vijayvaani.com

Courtesy: http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=2295

The all-American way is not India’s way

By Sreeram Chaulia 

When nation states have the potential of breaking into the elite league of great powers, the paths they tread become topics of universal discussion. We have just come out of intense deliberation about one such transition, as China rose over the last decade to take its place as a genuine superpower. With India now attempting its own push for global recognition, international strategic commentaries on its strengths, and bets on whether it can really “make it” or not, are proliferating.

Former American diplomat William Avery’s new book, China’s Nightmare, America’s Dream. India as the Next Global Power, joins this crowding genre of India-watching. It contends that India can be a world power like China and the US, but for the “timidity of its political leadership”. It is a call to action for India to convert its increasing wealth into more power through “the right policies and leadership”, which have been scarce commodities.

Avery argues that Indian leaders have shown “courage and speed of action” only twice in the last two decades, viz. in 1991, via the economic reforms which spurred remarkable growth, and in 1998, when they tested the atomic bomb and ended a long spell of strategic irrelevance. On the converse side, India’s leadership has been found wanting in acting forcefully against foreign enemies perpetrating acts of terrorism on Indian soil.

The author’s recipes for overcoming this “timidity” are, however, quite jejune. His wish that India should have militarily re-intervened in Sri Lanka right after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi reveals a stunning lack of basic cost-benefit analysis or means-end matching. His prescription for India to “strong-arm resource-rich countries of Africa” is another over-the-top idea with complete disregard for the backlash that would generate (a heat which the Chinese are already feeling in Africa now). Avery keeps paying lip service to the ideal of India engineering its ascent through its unique ways, but his policy recommendations are imitative of what other great powers, past and present, have done.

The author sounds more credible in the portions of the book that address the challenge of taking India’s economic growth to higher levels. For achieving “great power growth”, India’s private-sector enterprises will have to globalise their footprints. In the game of mergers and acquisitions (M&A), Avery advises them to “look at tomorrow’s markets (China, Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America), not yesterday’s (the US, Europe and Japan)”, since the former promise more cost savings and sales growth.

Avery stresses that Indian corporations must urgently move up the value chain, shedding low-margin services like business process outsourcing (BPO) in favour of innovation-based technology products and brands.

It is time, he says, to “stop selling India’s talent short” and to convert our cyber-coolies into patent-bagging nerds. A world-class non-profit university system is essential to nurture this transformation into a high-tech economy. Avery aptly pinpoints to the imperative of Indian corporations and the state investing heavily in university infrastructure and professorial pay packets to “draw some of its academic diaspora back from Western institutions”, the way China has done successfully.

China is already a university powerhouse and India has to close this “minds race gap” as much as the arms race gap and the intelligence agency funding gap with its giant northern neighbour.

Avery identifies a core flaw in India’s military investment for being “strong on people, weak on equipment and technology”, and pleads for rectifying this imbalance. He also contrasts China — which has a long-term strategy for turning the renminbi into a global currency — with India, which lacks “an activist government with the vision and confidence to promote the rupee as one of the leading currencies in the world.”

The most problematic aspect of Avery’s book lies in his foreign policy blueprint for India to gallop to great-power status. Recapping the views of Robert Kaplan of Stratfor, Avery believes that India must agree to act as an offshore counter-balancer of China to serve American interests. He does not pause to consider whether American interests and Indian interests are not always identical. India’s geography and geopolitical setting demand that it decide its own strategy, which may coincide with the needs of the great powers at particular historic junctures. But Avery goes for overkill, where India is expected to become a useful pawn for the US grand strategy.

The author’s conviction that India must enter into an alliance with the US “to stop the spread of tyranny” and to uphold shared “values of the British crown” is quaint. His exhortation to India to resurrect a “new British empire” in partnership with the US is literally a form of linguistic violence. The less slavish India remains — be it to the US or to China — the better its chances of evolving as a great power. Avery’s odious analogy of the “Indo-American alliance” with the US-Britain special relationship sidesteps the total asymmetry of the latter dyad. He should know better that India will never agree to become anyone’s poodle or junior partner.

The author’s convoluted point that the US “successfully persuaded” India not to avenge Pakistan-sponsored terrorist acts, and his satisfaction that “India complied” for its own good, exposes his American big brotherly intentions. His admonition of India for maintaining relations with “pariah states Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela” again imposes American choices on a sovereign India, allegedly for India’s welfare. His vision of India “committing to a common foreign policy framework” with the US and its allies, wherein New Delhi no longer “cultivates relationships with regimes such as Iran”, is barely disguised neo-imperialism to restrict India’s choices.

Should Washington decide for Delhi who it should consort with? Avery’s unabashed suggestion that India “act as America’s eyes and ears in a region far from Washington” is an insult to Indian self-esteem. Other glaring examples of misguided policy counsel in the book include assertions that India’s “restraint” vis-à-vis terrorism unleashed by Pakistan is admirable, and that this passivity is turning Delhi into a closer ally of Washington. India’s failure to force a change in Pakistan’s behaviour is actually a telling indicator of why the former cannot be rated as a great power.

Is it preferable for India to become a great power with a distinct quality or to win brownie points from the US? Avery never poses such a question, since his core assumption is that India has no option but to concede a trajectory of dependent rise, where it becomes a loyal member of the American global alliance system.

This book is agreeably impatient about short-sightedness in India’s political class and corporations, but it falls pitifully short on how Indian foreign policy should proceed towards the goal of great power stature. If Avery were to decide, India would be yoked to one superpower and offered some wages in return for being pliable. While we can rubbish this fanciful scenario from ever materialising, it is important to read books like these (and works by Robert Kaplan) to stay alert against strategic entrapment and to chart our own destiny.

Sreeram Chaulia is dean of the Jindal School of International Affairs and the author of International Organizations and Civilian Protection: Power, Ideas and Humanitarian Aid in Conflict Zones 

Courtesy: THE ASIAN AGE 

http://www.asianage.com/books/all-american-way-not-india-s-way-371

Nepal parties fail to handle and run the nation

By Deepak Gajurel

Will the new constitution be promulgated by Jestha14?

What type of the constitution will that be?

Will the Nepali people accept that undemocratically promulgated document?

If not, what will happen next, whether the constitution is promulgated or not?

As ‘top leaders’ of ‘major parties’ are, at the eleventh hour, heading towards ‘giving’ the Nepali people a constitution in haste, it has become obvious that the expected constitution will not be in accordance with the aspiration of the Nepali people.

The very process the parties are adopting is the justification that the ‘constitution of New Nepal’ would be by and for the syndicate of a handful of politicians. The ‘Loktantrik’ politicians have put this nation into a whirlpool of uncertainty and chaos.

An analysis from domestic, regional as well as international perspectives is done in a radio talk show, which was broadcast live by Gorkha FM on May 14, 2012 (Jestha 01, 2069).

The 22-minute program in MP3 format can be listened or downloaded by clicking on the following link.

https://www.box.com/s/268646a3a90e938449ce