|
India:
Failing Nepal at her own perils
According to informed sources,
the government of Nepal has been considering signing of the Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) pursuant to the Statement
of the Chairperson of the 60th session of the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights (CHR) on "Human Rights Assistance
to Nepal". This is nothing but another bluff to beguile international
community to not to sponsor any resolution at the 61st
session of the CHR as the government of Nepal completely disregards
its 25
points commitment on human rights made on 26 March 2004.
King Gyanendra Bir Bikram
Shah Dev has adopted a strategy familiar with archetypical autocrats: divide the over-ground
political parties in Kathmandu, blame the underground Maoists for
all the ills and resist any international scrutiny with the support
of, mainly, the United States and India. His Majesty’s grab for
more power as reflected from his inauguration of the Raj Parishad
(Royal Council) on 9 December 2004 further divided the political
parties. The Communist Party of Nepal (UML) boycotted the session.
The King’s poodle, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba in his address
on 10 December 2004 conjured up a spectre of manipulative
human rights defenders who allegedly only focus on human rights
violations by the security forces and not the Maoists. The term
of the parliament has already expired; and the government functions
on the basis of illegality – the show cause notice issued by the
Supreme Court of Nepal on 13 December 2004 to the Prime Minister’s
Office over repeated promulgation of 15 ordinances
over the last three years is a clear testimony.
A delegation of the European
Union - Troika is presently visiting Kathmandu and met Prime Minister
Deuba on 14 December 2004. The King who has been ruling through
a succession of proxies has become used to moans from soft Europeans.
The moans of the EU stop at Prime Minister's Office and do not directly
reach to the King. Not surprising, the EU - Troika today i.e. 15
November 2004 urged the Maoists to respond positively to government’s
invitation for dialogue without any preconditions. Unless the United
States and India press the King for a third party mediation, bringing
the government and the Maoists to a negotiating table looks as chimerical
as ever. The deadline of January 13th for the Maoists
to enter into talks is a childish outburst of the Prime Minister
whose only qualification increasingly appears to be his loyalty
to the King. With the Maoists controlling about 70% of the landscape
of Nepal, the bizarre threat to hold elections if the Maoists refuse
to talk, will further destroy the credibility, if there is any,
of the political leadership in Kathmandu.
Over 10,000 people have
been killed since the conflict begun and it has direct implications
on India. Therefore, when King Gyanendra undertakes 10 days visit
to New Delhi from 23 December 2004, India must have its list of
issues ready for initiating early resumption of dialogue with the
Maoists.
India must realise that
arming and training the Nepalese army which is under the command
of King Gyanendra cannot resolve the conflict. The edifice of the
State structure in Nepal has collapsed – more than 700 out of 1,000
police stations have been withdrawn since the much vaunted Unified
Command took over in 2001. The government of Nepal does not have
the basic structure to collect information from the rural areas.
For the Nepalese Police, most counter insurgency training programmes
whether in Kathmandu or India's National Police Academy at Hyderabad
are like numerous other workshops on trafficking held in Kathmandu
over the decades. However, the King, as head of the armed forces,
is aware that about two thirds of the 60,000 Royal Nepal Army are
posted in Kathmandu valley to prevent it from falling into the hands
of the Maoists. Yet, convinced of a military solution, a figment
of his fertile imagination, the King thwarted all the peace initiatives
involving himself and Maoists; and is most likely to advocate military
solution and ask for more arms from New Delhi.
While the United States
has its own ideological pranks to advocate a military solution,
India needs to understand the implications of failing Nepal. A failed
State at the border is not good for any country, more so when the
borders are open and porous. The exodus of Nepalese as a result
of the conflict and increasing poverty has its own implications.
The human rights violations
both by the security forces and the Maoists and poverty have forced
hundreds of thousands of Nepalese to migrate to India. Across the
Northern India – Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Haryana, Punjab,
Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir, and West Bengal – thousands
of ethnic Nepalese have been working as agricultural labourers.
While there are no estimates as to the actual number of Nepalese
migrants given the open borders, the figure is believed to be over
10 million.
Armed conflicts increase
vulnerability of poor, downtrodden and ethnic minorities. Indo-Nepal
borders are infamous for trafficking of Nepalese girls, women and
children to India. The government of India and Nepal never adopted
any serious measures to stop trafficking. As the conflict increases,
the trafficking of dangerous substance including drugs and arms
cannot be ruled out.
The success of the Maoists
in Nepal may also encourage the Maoists in Indian side of the border,
especially in North India. The oppressive caste system, absolute
lack of land reforms, gross and widespread human rights violations
both by the administration and the upper caste Hindus can easily
make North India a fertile ground for the Indian Maoists. India
has repeatedly alleged that the Maoists of Nepal have links with
their ideological brethrens in India. In protest against India’s
military assistance to Nepal, the Maoists of Nepal repeatedly attacked
the Indian business establishments in that country. In the
last few years, the activities of the Maoists across India have
increased perceptibly. On 21 November 2004, 18 policemen were killed
in a mine blast near Chakia village, about 80 km from Varanasi town
of Uttar Pradesh.
A negotiated settlement
is the only solution to the Maoists crisis. The Maoists have refused
to talk to the proxy government presently headed by Deuba and called
for either direct talks with the King or through third party mediation.
India is too engrossed with Nepal to be accepted as a neutral mediator.
Even if India were to be accepted, India’s Foreign Ministry officials
are haunted by the “Kashmir ghost” – India's mediation in Nepal
may open the possibility of third party mediation on Kashmir.
Yet, India must urge King
Gyanendra either to hold direct negotiations with the Maoists or
involve a third party for mediation. The government of Norway has
expressed interest. New Delhi has regularly been briefed both by
the authorities in Colombo and Norwegian envoys on the peace process
with the Tamil Tigers. New Delhi can give much needed advice to
the King on the involvement of the Norwegians. At the same time,
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has also expressed interests on
numerous occasions to use his good office.
The involvement of a third
party is crucial for stopping flagrant human rights violations perpetrated
both by the security forces and the Maoists as reflected from the
statement
of Professor Stephen J. Toope, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working
Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances of the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights made at the conclusion of the Working
Group's visit to Nepal from 6 to 14 December 2004. The cease-fire
agreements will need to be monitored by international monitors and
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and immediate
prosecution of the culprits must be the key features of the cease-fire
agreements. The presence of international monitors will also help
to hold the Maoists accountable for violations of human rights and
humanitarian laws. The presence of international monitors can give the necessary space
to the common people of Nepal to free themselves from the fear of
the security forces and the Maoists. The people of Nepal can directly
participate in the processes whether holding of elections for the
Parliament or Constituent Assembly if agreements on such elections
were to be arrived at through negotiations. Participation of the
people of Nepal in such a process would be a triumph of democracy
which could not be ensured by national mediators as they merely
served as postmen.
At the 60th session
of the Commission on Human Rights, the representatives of the Permanent
Mission of India to the UN in Geneva reportedly told the European
diplomats that India has no objection to the country resolution
on the situation of human rights in Nepal if the later agreed. Of
course, Nepal disagreed and therefore, a mild chairman’s statement
on technical assistance to Nepal was adopted. It was like rewarding
Nepal for gross and widespread human rights violations. Yet, over
eight months have elapsed, Nepal is yet to ink the MOU, which is
in any case meant only to strengthen the NHRC. When the army is
openly contemptuous of the Supreme Court, what role can the NHRC
play? The term of the present members of the NHRC will expire soon
and under Section
4 of the National Human Rights Commission Act of 1997, no new
member can effectively be appointed as there is no parliament and
therefore, the leader of the Opposition. It is possible that the
King will either retain or most likely appoint new members of the
NHRC through another ordinance and then sign the MOU with the OHCHR.
India can easily beguile
international community with the approach taken by its Permanent
Mission at the 61st session of the CHR. However, the influence of
New Delhi over Kathmandu and King Gyanendra needs little introduction.
If India continues with such ambivalent position to support an "Executive
King" against its stated position to support multi-party democracy
with constitutional monarchy in Nepal, it can do so at her own perils.
A prolong conflict with the Maoists has the potential to shake the
heartland of India, the cow belt and therefore, India must urge
the King, the de facto and de jure ruler of Nepal,
to resume dialogues with the Maoists. The effects of the war in
Afghanistan on the Pakistani society are instructive.
|