Fourth dimension of India's intervention in Nepal


BIRAJ BAHADUR BISTA

Despite former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s vociferous public outcry of foreign intervention in Nepal, it caught everyone by surprise when he called on India for talks to put him back in power. His demands might be legitimate, his protests worthy of sympathy, but to call on India is outright immature and only asking for more Indian intervention. We constantly talk about why India wants to have similar control over Nepal, as it does over Sikkim, or Bhutan. With probable motives being to control water resources in Nepal for an energy-hungry India, to divert Nepal’s water to India’s drought-prone areas, or in Nehru’s idea of the Himalayas being India’s frontier. These reasons are supported by experts and scholars on Nepal-India relations who claim that India’s prime interest in Nepal is due to reasons of security, politics and resources. This article outlines a fourth probable cause for Indian intervention in Nepal. The security interest that India seeks is not only Nepal-India vis-a-vis China, but also its internal security related to ethnicity in India.

India has a painful history of separation. A chunk of the Indian state in the East (Bangladesh) and West (Pakistan) was split on religious and ethnic grounds. India as a state remembers this bitter experience deeply and will enforce measures along the lines of Chinese policy to keep its territory intact. The North Eastern states of India – Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Mizoram and West Bengal – are like a house of cards. If one falls, then all will fall. India, which is a union of federal states with a multitude of ethnic diversity, will feel its wave all across the land. Nagaland alone has over 15 different armed outfit groups claiming an independent Nagaland and Manipur has over 30 groups including non-violent ones wanting independence from India. Similarly, Assam also has separatist groups. The Indian establishment requires special permission for outsiders to visit the eastern states of Manipur and Nagaland and any mention of the separatist movement in the North Eastern states of India is censored in both the national and international media. Nepalis in West Bengal are at present seeking a different state for themselves within India, which is perhaps a better bargain for the Indian State for now rather than the prospect of a secessionist Gorkha state or an allegiance to Nepal, which became visible during King Mahendra’s and Birendra’s reigns.

India employs various measures to keep Nepal virtually weak due to its own paranoia about yet another separation of a region from India.Both the former kings took a non-aligned stance during their reigns. Although their regimes are not above criticism, one could safely say that at least there was relative political stability and national unity during their time. Scores of Nepali intellectuals, artists, civilians and commoners from the Indian states of West Bengal and Sikkim flooded into Nepal and contributed not only to Nepali literature and art, but also to the promotion of Nepali nationalism within Nepal with a spillover effect to the Nepali in India. Nepal stood as an ethnic hub to all the Nepalis in India. Until the days of the British Raj in India, the Nepalis living in the former territories of Greater Nepal annexed to India enjoyed a comfortable status as Gorkhalis employed in the British army and in the tea gardens of Darjeeling and Sikkim. This balance tipped over once India gained independence and the status of Nepalis in India became that of secondary citizens. Given the choice of living as second-grade citizens in India as against to being Nepali in Nepal, the Nepalis in India identified themselves more as Nepali than being an Indian, thus the very nature of Indian citizenry under the Indian Union was challenged.

Mahendra’s reclamation and Birendra’s continuity of nationalism within Nepal, whether intentional or unintentional, spread across the former Eastern territories of Nepal. This phenomenon if unchecked could have a crumbling affect for the Indian state and lead to serious repercussions. The increased Nepali nationalist sentiment was a grave concern to India. Scholars around the world have postulated that economic and political stability of a nation leads to an increased sense of national identity and pride. The relatively stable political system and economically-progressive Nepal, as under King Mahendra’s and Birendra’s time, posed a huge threat to India because if the Nepali community in India re-associated with the greater Nepali ethnic hub, the threats of claiming an independent state on ethnic grounds became an imminent possibility. The other regions such as Nagaland, Manipur, Assam could be controlled from within and their voices hushed, but the Nepali movement has another dimension that has a historical and geographical link to Nepal and could thus be a major source of disintegration of the Indian state. Given political and economic stability of Nepal, allegiance of Nepali in the former territories could pose a direct threat to internal stability in India, thus it requires the Indian state to constantly meddle in the internal affairs of Nepal.

Time and again since Nepal’s agreement with a new-born India in the 1950s, there have been incidents of such Indian intervention to cause political and economic instability in Nepal. However, in this article, I would like to focus on some recent incidents to support my argument. It is a well-known fact that the transition of governments since the ousting of King Gyanendra has been administered by India and it also stands true that if there is any transition to come in the near future then India has prior knowledge and stamp of approval on it. Former PM Dahal’s call to India is an apt example and so is the rat race of Nepali politicians to India. Apart from these mediums of direct intervention, the Indian state also employs physical mediums to weaken Nepal.

Border encroachment is at large across the Nepal-India border and there is yet another trend in the border usually of Nepali nationals being regularly harassed by the Border Security Forces of India (BSF). About a month ago, at the Birgunj border, a man and a pregnant woman were beaten by the Indian BSF. Approximately three months ago, a Nepali national was beaten to death and then there was the mass hounding in Dang by India’s BSF about six months ago. The Indian Foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon left Nepal denying any involvement of the BSF in the Dang incident while implying that these issues happen in border areas. The scale of displacement was clearly ignored. What is astonishing in India is the fact that The National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB) does not even record crimes at the hands of BSF along the border lines. The BSF is an infamous paramilitary unit stationed in areas of political instability in India and also along the borders of Nepal and Bangladesh. It is accused of committing crimes including rape, torture and murder wherever they are posted in India, notably in North-Eastern states like Manipur and in West Bengal. The Indian state clearly ignores cases along the border lines to the extent that it legitimizes criminal activity of the BSF and police personnel. Menon clearly hinted that what happens along the India-Nepal border is legitimate and that these issues that take place along its border line will be unrecorded to the extent that injustice will continue, as will the Indian State’s insensate policy, a policy to wear out and perpetually weaken Nepal.

India employs various measures to keep Nepal virtually weak, due to its own paranoia about yet another separation of a region from India. India as a state is in constant strain, due to ethnic and religious divide. India’s history of separation has left a deep scar and it would do anything within its means to prevent any further disintegration of its states. An economically- and politically-stable Nepal could stir nationalistic allegiance in the former Nepali territories in India as during King Mahendra’s and Birendra’s time. Our leaders talk against intervention and protest Indian aggression and at the same time engage in advocating political policies on behalf of India. This sort of dual policy approach is not only keeping Nepali people bewildered, but it is also advancing the Indian agenda to keep Nepal in a weakening whirlpool. Senior political leaders and Indian scholars have regularly promoted for federal states in Nepal along the lines of the Indian model. Recently, some Nepali political parties’ leaders have also advocated the breaking up of Nepal into smaller states along the lines of ethnicities. However, it would definitely be in the better interest of Nepal to remain as a small unified State, rather than break off into smaller states along the lines of ethnicities as this would only further serve India’s purpose.

(Writer is a PhD student, Department of Political Science, Seoul National University.)