Nepal perspective: Obama blunders

N. P. Upadhyaya, Nepal

Kathmandu: Comrade Prachanda perhaps doesn’t want to narrow down his political persona in the confines of Nepal's limited politics only. He prefers greater political space and role now which could be noticed from his fresh political overtones more so being made upon China return.

His aspirations have gone up and thus he sounded last fortnight that he will henceforth flex his muscles on matters of regional politics as well which for him will definitely compel him to utter "grapes are sour".

His internal ambitions, as far as we could surmise, is to present himself as a dominant player in the regional affairs.

He is free to dream as this is his fundamental right.

It is in total a different matter that he has yet to identify with his political height and stature, controversial that it is, prior to taking such a dangerous political risk.

The fact is that his foundations have already begun quivering in his own party's politics and thus it would be a self defeating exercise for Prachanda to talk things bigger than his own size.

Only yesterday, Prachanda did admit that he was being "pushed to the wall" by his own immediate colleagues-Dr. Bhattarai and Ideologue Mohan Baidya.

He will be cornered further, we have been told.

But yet he talked that has already jolted the Indian regime-his former shelter provider, if he recalls.

The Nepal Maoist leader, Prachanda, whose hobnob with the Beijing authorities has taken a new height, more so after he had to abruptly resign from Nepal PM post, last year, May 4, 2010, because he and a section of his party concluded that his ouster was the structured maneuvering of the Indian establishment, has floated a new hilarious idea with no "buyers" in sight.

He claims that a three country alliance comprising of India-Nepal-China should come into existence at the earliest which, if took a formal shape, could benefit all the countries in the said alliance.

Whether Prachanda was talking of a security alliance or something different has yet to be made public.

(Primarily this three country security alliance idea was first floated by Professor Krishna Dhoj Khand last year at a Sangam Institute Seminar held in Kathmandu wherein this pen pusher was himself present-ed).

Well, this is Prachanda's initiative. So far, none of the countries, neither India nor China, have shown any signs of their eagerness in studying even the inner details and the very motive that could be behind floating of such a thought which has come to the political arena out of the blue.

Nepali thinkers who know his intellectual aptitude doubt that such a meaning loaded idea having a far reaching impact on regional affairs, speaking considering the developments in this part of Himalayan Asia of late more so after Obama's New Delhi trip, could have been the private sharp brain of Comrade Prachanda. Instead, Nepal's academic world prefer to claim that the scheme for having a sort of strategic alliance in between the three countries could have been the master brain of the Chinese regime itself floated through Prachanda in order to feel the pulse beat of its arch rival-India.

Yet another section opine that why should China, the emerging world power, pick a person who spent some good eight years plus in India in floating such an idea of high import?

China, the intellectuals say, if it desired to float such a concept then Beijing can do so easily through its own men in India who count in the Indian politics.

China can at best float this brilliant idea through the communist parties that adhere to Mao principles in a Gandhi nation.

Scores of Communist parties exist in India who possess sentimental attachment to the theory of Chairman Mao and take Beijing as Mecca of Communist politics and thus China could disseminate such ideas through its own men in India.

Sounds logical and practical as well.

This set thus rejects that China could have told Prachanda to propagate this theory.

High placed sources opine that China may not have necessarily floated this "plan" as entering into such an alliance would mean to curtail its own "increased activities" in South Asian region.

Some high placed sources emphasize that it is a Chinese brain by and large. Let's gulp it for some time then.

China though wants to cut down the size of the Indian influence in the region but yet the inclusion of China itself in such a group would mean limiting its own sphere of influence as this alliance would be more or less like a pact or say a treaty which could restrict Beijing's further advance into the politics of this region.

For China, Nepal is the best place strategically, to eye the entire South Asian region.

China understands Nepal's significance.

Understandably, China needs a safe and secured Tibet and any government in Nepal that assures Beijing that Nepali soil will not be used against Chinese security interests would be more than enough.

And fortunately for China, the Nepali leaders, including Nepal President, has emphatically assured China that Nepali soil will not be allowed to be used against China.

Add to this Prachanda's firm assurances also.

When such determined assurances have already come for China then she has no need to enter into such a pact that impedes her own growing ambitions to corner its arch rival-India in the South.

The "string of pearls" has already come into existence and is expanding much to the chagrin of the "police" of this region.

Thus China will tooth and nail disagree to be a party to such an alliances pushed by Prachanda which cuts her own wing.

More so China has reasons to disagree with such a proposal because President Obama has "encouraged" India, November 8, 23010, to go wilder as if it were not enough.

Though China through a statement, November 9, 2010, has tentatively lauded India's inclusion in the US Security Council seat, as talked and promised by Obama, but the statement is a vague one. Several opposing interpretation could be deduced.

In addition, China is already in Nepal and thus why she should limit her own increased role in Nepali affairs through the kind courtesy of this pact equivalent to a treaty?

Fortunately, the US Ambassador Scot DeLisi a month back made it clear that China must be a party in Nepal's peace process.

But why the US invited China to mediate in Nepali affairs?

Is it just to please China? If so then he is doing so at the cost of US-India friendship for obvious reasons.

India remains undeterred though.  

So let's presume, for the moment, Prachanda pushed this formula for some mysterious reasons. To elevate his own height? Perhaps yes as Dr. Surendra K. C opines. (See Five Questions).

Now let's talk how India could have taken this Prachanda model.

New Delhi will summarily write off this offer for numerous reasons. 

Firstly, Delhi doesn't trust Prachanda any more for some clear understandable reasons.

New Delhi must have concluded that Prachanda, now a declared disciple of Chairman Mao and his thoughts, may have been told by the Beijing men to float this idea, which if worked, may lessen the all pervasive influence of the Indian republic in Nepali affairs.

And why should New Delhi bank on Prachanda for the prevalence of peace and tranquility in this region when all the diplomatic channels were in place which allows New Delhi to talk on such grave and weighty political theories straight with the regime in Beijing?

A New Delhi which has been told point blank to assume greater role in this region and beyond by President Obama will perhaps ignore this trilateral alliance design that has come from a Nepali national who lived in its territory for several years.

In addition, agreeing to such a pact as floated by Prachanda would mean decreasing its own free intervention in Nepal affairs and politics.

Interference in Nepali affairs is India's fundamental right, this is how the men in Delhi take.

New Delhi would in no way axe her own "happiness and safety" which remain at par with the Monroe Doctrine-the Nehruvian model- that have already penetrated deep into the Nepali politics by entering into this vague tripartite alliance.

India understands well that two third of the Nepali population is tentatively undeclared Indian Ambassador(s) to Nepal.

One European diplomat (name withheld as per media ethics) told this analyst some two years back that Nepal doesn't need the physical presence of Indian Ambassador here.

According to him, most of the Nepali leaders were working more than Indian envoys.

Thus why to enter into such an agreement that impedes its expansionist designs when deputed yes men remain in abundance?

Indian media have already debunked the idea of such an alliance and when the media speak, they inevitably speak the concerns and voices of the South Block-the seat in Delhi wherefrom Nepal is administered.

Nationalist Indian media men  that they are.  

In sum, neither India nor China will be interested in such talks instead both will in all likelihood summarily refrain from entering into such a pact which could be equivalent to a sort of treaty that would be binding on both.

At best, both India and China will increase their penetration in Nepali affairs as much as they can henceforth.

The process must have begun already, hopefully.

India has been made the judge of this region by President Obama and China will do all it can to frustrate Obama's dangerous encouragement provided to New Delhi during his freshly concluded trip to the known hegemon of this Himalayan Asia.

Obama made a political blunder of Himalayan dimension. The US should have sought briefings in advance from India's smaller neighbors as to what India meant to them prior to elevating India's "undeserved" status in this part of the world. India's tiny neighbors know where the shoe pinches. 

An India with a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council, as promised by Obama, would create havoc in this part of the world sooner than later.

In all likelihood, Obama's gross wrong perception of India could escalate tension in the region. China will not tolerate. Smaller nations will eventually "under compulsion" side with China, Pakistan included.

In all, Obama cornered Pakistan.

Obama ignored China's economic-military strength.

Obama encouraged the regional bully.

Obama did not listen to the plight of India's smaller neighbors.

The survival factor perhaps will force the smaller nations to strengthen the hands of China and to some extent Pakistan.

This is inevitable. Obama must understand that he has sown the seeds of grand polarization in this part of South Asia.

No wonder, President George Bush has taken Obama as a "failed US President".  

Chinese activities will thus increase further to the utter dismay of India and the US-the new partners.

(A modest analysis presented keeping in the larger interest of mother Nepal. Comments are most welcome: Upadhyaya.

Post your Comment here

TERMS OF USE:The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any persons) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).


I agree


  • Posted on - 2010-11-12    by     nepal
  • I think Nepal needs to understand it's limitations.Prachanda is over evaluating hiself by coming up with a tri-nations agreement.India is a major power of S.Asia and along with China it is also growing Militarily and Economically.India and China cannot jeopardize their relationship for Nepal.BY this year the trade between India and China is expected to reach $60bn.We must get more mature when we talk about foreign policy.In Nepal most of the foreign policy commentatores still remains amatuer.
  • Posted on - 2010-11-11    by     w
  • I doubt Obama endorsed India without first talking it over with the Chinese. This is a naive assessment of world politics and how leaders interact in this day and age. The Chinese will welcome the move - watch this space. As for Dahal - can anyone say slide.....
  • Posted on - 2010-11-11    by     Zerousa
  • President Obama's omission of a timeline in his assurance to India was telling that this is only his diplomacy. India needs to pass the American tests of responsible conducts in international affairs. What India is doing to its immediate neighbours are being watched by the ambassadors of US to these countries. Mr. Obama's statement does not deserve a serious response.
  • Posted on - 2010-11-10    by     Top Gun
  • China will endorse Obama this December when the Chinese premier arrives at India. Dahal has lost his credibility with both your neighbors. Forget South Asia, what has Dahal done for his home country other than slaughtering innocent Nepalese lives in a so called “peoples war” which has brought your country to rank with Somalia? India will occupy Afghanistan once US leaves AF-Pak and this has US blessings to control South Asia. Pakistan is too trivial for China to annoy India since India controls South Korea and can influence Japan with its forthcoming free trade agreement with that country. Rest of ASEAN will fall in place and this includes Australia. Dahal must know his limitations and consider himself lucky that he is still relevant at Nepal and act accordingly as you have rightly stated. Let me remind you that the Chinese Ambassador to India is of the rank of a Vice Foreign Minister - the same rank that sits in the 5 other permanent UN security member countries.