Hand wringing and sanctimony

IN Opinion | 06/02/2005

You don’t say!

Darius Nakhoonwala

There is nothing like a coup in a neighbouring country to bring out sanctimony by the bucketfuls amongst leader writers. So it is not surprising that when King Gyanendra of Nepal dismissed the Deuba government and took over himself, there should have been a huge outpouring of anguish.

The King had dismissed the prime Minister and his cabinet, declared an Emergency, curtailed fundamental rights placed political leaders under house arrest and cut off all forms of communication with the outside world.

Not one newspaper failed to beat its breast or offer unsolicited advice, both to Nepal and to the Indian government. And, therefore, every newspaper sounded exactly the same lament. Nor did any columnist have anything fresh to offer. You read one, you read them all. The reason, I suspect, is laziness. Otherwise, some fresh insights and details would have been there.

The Hindu did carry a different angle but on the oped page. It was a signed story by Harish Khare, which reported that a minister had enquired during the Cabinet meeting to discuss Nepal whether the King had India’s blessings in dismissing the prime minister and declaring an Emergency.

This angle was not followed up in spite of its plausibility. This arises from Indian assessments of the threat to Indian security emanating from Nepal. India is convinced that the ISI and the Maoists in Nepal are using one another in a quid pro quo game.

Nor did any leader writer or columnist take into account the fact that India has, in fact, been telling Nepal for a long time -- both at the level of the prime minister and the King -- that the Maoist situation had to be dealt with. Most newspapers accused India of having been caught by surprise. On an overall view, this seems unlikely.

Another aspect went missing last week: where does India’s self interest actually lie? Does it really lie in a democracy in Nepal? A properly functioning democracy may be good for the people of Nepal but is it also good for us? Should India’s policy be driven by a concern for the people of Nepal or a concern for the people of India?

It would have been very educative to see a complete analysis of these questions. Alas, no one bothered to step outside the template, which is a pity because there was an impressive quantity of analysis available on www.saag.org which is the website of the South Asia Analysis Group.

In another article, B Raman, who used to work for the Cabinet Secretariat asked the million dollar question: "Was this a coup by the King, or by the Army using the King as a façade, or by both acting in tandem and in complicity?"

One paragraph from that article is worth quoting in full. "India has more reasons to be concerned over the likelihood of the success of the Maoists of Nepal  than any other country. The Government of India and 13 States of the Indian Union have been struggling in vain for some years now to bring under control the spreading prairie fire of Maoism, fanned by Maoist groups operating under different names. Last year, there were no deaths due to the activities of jihadi terrorists in Indian territory outside Jammu & Kashmir, but there were more than 500 deaths due to the activities of Maoists."

He then says that "Beijing would be the happiest were the Maoists to capture power in Nepal. That would give China a strategic thrust into the sub-continent. It is, therefore, not in India`s interests to let the Maoists succeed in capturing power through an armed struggle in Nepal. Hence, its reported military assistance to the Royal Nepal Army despite its reservations and concerns over the King`s autocratic tendencies and erratic policies."

But his conclusion is sobering. "The Maoists will be the ultimate beneficiaries of the coup and not the King, the political leadership or the people."