Resumption of arms supply to Nepal - A step in the right direction
Finally, better sense has prevailed upon the UPA government as it decided to resume the arms supply to Royal Nepalese Army, ignoring the protests from the leftists and self-declared protectors of democracy that includes some media houses. It took India nearly weeks to reverse its earlier stand of cutting-off the supply, which was a knee jerk reaction immediately after the royal coup in February.
The argument that Gyanendra has suspended an elected government and acting like a dictator holds no merit. True he might have dismissed the government, suppressed the press and might have done so many other things. What about Pakistan & China, gentlemen? The proponents of Nepali democracy never had any hesitation to cuddle up and cajole with General Musharraf or the communist China, where the mere utterance of the word 'democracy' can put you behind bars.
One important parameter to be considered in the India-Nepal equation is 'Maoists', and ignoring that would create serious problems for us in the long-term. Already, we are surrounded by two unfriendly governments in east and north-west and one untrustworthy government in north-east. And we all know too well about the infiltrating in J&K and North-east to need mention. Add to that, the home grown Naxals and Maoists who are spread in 175 districts. It is no secret that the Maoists in India and Nepal collaborate with each other in several ways, arms and narcotics smuggling included.
To make the issue worse, ISI has been active in Nepal and uses it as launch pad for smuggling in the terrorists and fake currency, trying to spread the theatre beyond J&K and North-east. Memories of the hijack of IC-814 from Kathmandu and the subsequent exchange of 3 militants for 154 hostages should be an indicator of the ISI's ability to operate from Nepal.
The proponents of the democracy doesn't understand that the foreign policy should be flexible and should balance between the current realities and long-term goals. It wouldn't be prudent to be myopic and act in a knee-jerk manner, when handling sensitive issues like this. With respect to foreign policy there is also an important term in the government lexicon, namely 'national interest'.
Unfortunately, for many people in India the word 'national interest' has become irritating, merely because it is often repeated by BJP. Look at a recent article by Praful Bidwai, belonging to a group made up of leftists and other 'secularists' in Rediff titled "India's U-turn for a despot". It is always funny to read him as you will find Bidwai contradicting himself and giving out astonishing statistics, which you will never know how he arrived at. To quote him:
By using the word 'indigenous', Bidwai cleverly tries to mask the connections between Maoist groups in India & Nepal. Now, sample this:
It would be better if somebody can remember Bidwai about IC-814 and circulation of fake currency notes. And, may be he still want to believe that Pakistan and China will prefer benefits of peace over the opportunity to destabilise India by using Nepali soil apart from the Bangladesh. Such Bidwais never had any problem with China's engagement with Myanmar or the military coup in Pakistan.
China never hesitated to meaningfully engage with the military regime in Myanmar and took several steps such as supplying arms, encouraging bilateral trade, building roads between two countries, encouraging military-to-military contacts, while we were blindly opposing the regime post-1988. When India woke up finally and started looking seriously into Myanmar during the Vajpayee government, thanks to Narasimha Rao's 'Look East' policy, much has been last. Chinese are way ahead of us in gas exploration in Myanmar, whereas we are just starting with two contracts. Given a huge potential of reserves available in Myanmar, we would have to act fast to secure the resources for our future energy needs. Energy is just one example of what we lost by isolating Myanmar. Security is another area of concern and the reader can read this to know more on security threats arising out China's engagement with Myanmar.
Given these factors, it would have been unwise to make yet another enemy in Nepal by denying assistance to the King, when he needs it more. And thinking again about the 'national interest' Manmohan Singh has done a good job, although after an initial goof up, by resuming the arms supply to Nepal and he deserves to be appreciated for his act despite opposition from the leftists, who want to have the authority without any associated responsibility. By doing this we've striked at least three goals:
The argument that Gyanendra has suspended an elected government and acting like a dictator holds no merit. True he might have dismissed the government, suppressed the press and might have done so many other things. What about Pakistan & China, gentlemen? The proponents of Nepali democracy never had any hesitation to cuddle up and cajole with General Musharraf or the communist China, where the mere utterance of the word 'democracy' can put you behind bars.
One important parameter to be considered in the India-Nepal equation is 'Maoists', and ignoring that would create serious problems for us in the long-term. Already, we are surrounded by two unfriendly governments in east and north-west and one untrustworthy government in north-east. And we all know too well about the infiltrating in J&K and North-east to need mention. Add to that, the home grown Naxals and Maoists who are spread in 175 districts. It is no secret that the Maoists in India and Nepal collaborate with each other in several ways, arms and narcotics smuggling included.
To make the issue worse, ISI has been active in Nepal and uses it as launch pad for smuggling in the terrorists and fake currency, trying to spread the theatre beyond J&K and North-east. Memories of the hijack of IC-814 from Kathmandu and the subsequent exchange of 3 militants for 154 hostages should be an indicator of the ISI's ability to operate from Nepal.
The proponents of the democracy doesn't understand that the foreign policy should be flexible and should balance between the current realities and long-term goals. It wouldn't be prudent to be myopic and act in a knee-jerk manner, when handling sensitive issues like this. With respect to foreign policy there is also an important term in the government lexicon, namely 'national interest'.
Unfortunately, for many people in India the word 'national interest' has become irritating, merely because it is often repeated by BJP. Look at a recent article by Praful Bidwai, belonging to a group made up of leftists and other 'secularists' in Rediff titled "India's U-turn for a despot". It is always funny to read him as you will find Bidwai contradicting himself and giving out astonishing statistics, which you will never know how he arrived at. To quote him:
Fears about the 'Maoist factor' are, to put it mildly, exaggerated. The Naxalite movement is indigenous. Less than a fifth of the 175 districts affected by it (in India) are anywhere near Nepal.
India should not worry much about China and Pakistan becoming Nepal's substitute arms-suppliers. Pakistan is playing a small game, and has no major influence in Kathmandu. Neither Pakistan, nor more importantly China, would like to lose the greater benefits of peace with India for tiny potential gains in Nepal.
It would be better if somebody can remember Bidwai about IC-814 and circulation of fake currency notes. And, may be he still want to believe that Pakistan and China will prefer benefits of peace over the opportunity to destabilise India by using Nepali soil apart from the Bangladesh. Such Bidwais never had any problem with China's engagement with Myanmar or the military coup in Pakistan.
China never hesitated to meaningfully engage with the military regime in Myanmar and took several steps such as supplying arms, encouraging bilateral trade, building roads between two countries, encouraging military-to-military contacts, while we were blindly opposing the regime post-1988. When India woke up finally and started looking seriously into Myanmar during the Vajpayee government, thanks to Narasimha Rao's 'Look East' policy, much has been last. Chinese are way ahead of us in gas exploration in Myanmar, whereas we are just starting with two contracts. Given a huge potential of reserves available in Myanmar, we would have to act fast to secure the resources for our future energy needs. Energy is just one example of what we lost by isolating Myanmar. Security is another area of concern and the reader can read this to know more on security threats arising out China's engagement with Myanmar.
Given these factors, it would have been unwise to make yet another enemy in Nepal by denying assistance to the King, when he needs it more. And thinking again about the 'national interest' Manmohan Singh has done a good job, although after an initial goof up, by resuming the arms supply to Nepal and he deserves to be appreciated for his act despite opposition from the leftists, who want to have the authority without any associated responsibility. By doing this we've striked at least three goals:
- Making a friend in Nepal, which will be strategically important for our dealings with China
- Denying the maoists an upper hand in their battle with the King, which will have ripples in our own naxal infested districts
- Preventing Pakistan and China from meddling with Nepal and offering assistance to it thereby gaining upper hand with us
This is not to suggest that India is against democracy in Nepal. By providing this assistance to RNA, the Indian govt. would definitely have gone down in the minds of the public, press and political parties in Nepal, which again is not good. Right now, our decision to provide arms from RNA has been taken to address the short-term concerns. In the longer run the Indian govt. should continue to work with King and Nepali parties to restore the democracy in the himalayan kingdom.
posted by Baskaran Sankaran @ 10:40
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home