N. P. Upadhyaya Nepali
Kathmandu: The worst is yet to come, nevertheless, its construction works appear to be in progress with the desired and the required speed. Marionettes remain galore.
The ugly show business is all set to push the nation into an unparalleled political misfortune should the needed wisdom fail to prevail among the 12 point Nepal parties more so if the caretaker Prime Minister and the office of the Nepal Presidency ignore to understand the enormity of the impending debacle which is albeit of their own collective making.
Both have reportedly challenged each other just the other day. Yet the fact is that the mother of both, which gave birth to the two distinguished Nepali nationals, has unfortunately died making both now to swim in the deep blue ocean sans a life jacket.
The vasectomised hapless and hopeless Nepali population remain in a scared situation as if this were their destiny that it has become by all means. Bear with this insult. Thy fate the Nepalese!
Should the things take an unusual political itinerary, the likelihood of which remains aplenty, the once a Shangri-La nation-state may turn into Afghanistan or even Sudan thanks to the kind courtesy of the 12 point agreement-equivalent to a Treaty, 2005.
Misfortune began chasing this nation when the then seven agitating parties rushed to sign the Delhi drafted “damage Nepal agreement”, analysts claim authentically.
Yet if Nepali situation worsens, India is the ultimate loser. Analysts have some logic to substantiate their claim.
Political chaos in Nepal will certainly be a cause of immense security concern to India which the latter understands better.
China, better late than never has very cleverly understood the Nepali gravity.
Secondly, Chairman Mohan Baidya’s Maoists splinter appears to have already alarmed the Indian establishment as it sees the increased possibility of Mohan Baidya encouraging the Indian Maoists. Indian media has already become sensitive in this regard.
Mohan Baidya ensured split of the party back in Nepal recently only after some from his “team” members, high profile ones, met with the top-hat Indian Naxal leaders at a Karol Bagh Hotel, Delhi, possibly under the presumed supervision of Mrs. Binda Karat and her ilk. ( Not sure though). Yechury, was perhaps not invited at the Karol Bagh meet concluding that his close proximity with the RAW machination, whose links with Chairman Dahal and Bhattarai remains now no longer a secret, could leak this information back to the Agency. It could though be a designed plan to malign the credentials of Sitaram Yechury who forced the then Delhi residing Nepal Maoists to rule Nepal after some time. The plan worked as desired. Sonia’s coercive doctrine miraculously worked in Nepali politics through Yechury, many Nepalese believe it to have been so.
This Delhi hotel secret meet took place in April, 2012, high placed sources authentically claim.
It was decided at the Delhi Karol Bagh meet, highly informed sources say, that with the submission of the revolutionary credentials by the Nepal Maoists, the entire South Asian people’s war movement received a jolt which had to be corrected. Earlier the better.
And the correction began right from Kathmandu which encouraged the diehard revolutionaries to dissociate themselves with the submissive forces having links with the RAW and the Indian establishment. The Delhi hotel meet certainly provided an impetus to the split. It could be guessed so.
Needless to say, Mohan Baidya’s split with the mother party in Nepal was a long awaited affair.
In fact Mohan Baidya and his team suspected the very pseudo nationalist credentials of Prachanda and Babu Ram Bhattarai when these two NOIDA veterans signed a written treaty at Hyderabad House with the Indian establishment that “their people’s war would in no way be detrimental to the Indian interests in Nepal”. A highly informed Nepali newspaper has recently made it known to all that such a Treaty was signed in New Delhi and this heart rendering news has got to be believed since it has come from the horse’s mouth which has already become the talk of the town now.
The revelation has been made public through a book, “Nepal in Transition: From People’s War to Fragile Peace” and in the same book, published in the US, S. D. Muni writes a special story on “Bringing Down the Maoists from the Hills : India’s Role”. Muni presents himself as a Nepal expert. This expert, as a matter of fact, has a negative fame in Nepal which he doesn’t know perhaps. Muni has some close links with some Nepali ‘academicians’ who once were close to Nepali Royalty. It is this set of chameleon scholars who invite Muni to Kathmandu seminars occasionally.
Back to our main point.
It was signed, June 2002, in New Delhi and as witness men expectedly from the RAW and Central Intelligence Bureau, India must have been present.
Look at the timing of this treaty signed after 1950.
It was inked just a year after the Royal massacre with a presumed design to uproot the Royal Institution of Nepal for all time to come. The possibility can’t be ruled out.
It was after signing of this secret agreement that King Gyanendra began feeling uneasy in Nepal and yet had been ventilating to the Indian Prime Minister, Dr. Singh to understand the fact that “terrorists are terrorists” time and again as and when the two met. Perhaps King Gyanendra knew of this secret treaty that had been signed by two Nepal’s eminent nationals and thus he may have already calculated that his days were numbered as King of Nepal.
To recall, King Gyanendra reminded this to Dr. Singh when the two met in Jakarta and later in Dhaka at a SAARC Summit. However, the Indian design had to be materialised and thus Dr. Singh perhaps encouraged more to our “nationalists” and the latter in turn pounced upon their own nation in a merciless manner. This has now well been recorded in Nepali history.
Interestingly, Jaswant Singh, the Indian Foreign Minister after a year or so of this secret “treaty” declared the Nepal Maoists as terrorists much ahead of Nepal’s declaration of the same.
Should this mean that he was unaware of the signing of such a treaty in between the RAW and Nepal’s People’s War veterans?
Or it was just for international consumption that he declared the Maoists as terrorists? Mr. Singh knows it better. Atal Bihari Bajpayee was Indian PM then.
The question thus arises as to why Mr. Singh declared the Maoists as terrorists when his own agency had already become intimate friends of the brave sons of mother Nepal?
Many Nepalese have felt ashamed upon listening to this shameful anti-national deed. ( Though the men who signed this June 2002 treaty have yet to clarify their stance as to whether it was correct or just an affair to damage their political credentials). It was possibly after this treaty, signed in June 2002, that Baidya and his team, comparatively nationalist than the ones who signed the Treaty with the Indian Prime Minister’s office, were put behind bars in different parts of India under this or that pretext with the sole aim of pouncing upon Nepal and the then ruling Nepal sovereign King Gyanendra who had dared to side in favour of China. A lesson was taught. But was this a lesson taught for siding with China alone? Perhaps, India wanted to get rid of Nepali Royalty as well and thus the very significant objective, a neatly crafted one albeit, became a reality in 2006. China issue came in between.
Gyanendra though had to enter into the jungles yet he somehow or the other managed China’s grand entry into the SAARC mechanism with an observer status. But this was not the real factor that caused his peaceful entrance into the nearby Kathmandu jungles. India apparently wanted no King in Nepal after the loss of King Birendra.
With Gyanendra’s ouster from the throne, Chinese pain in Nepal trebled which she has been experiencing of late.
Yet China has not lost hope in Nepal. Of late, China appears to have got the point and prefers now to assert and reassert its due role in Nepali politics. Aggressive role likely.
As stated a few weeks back in these very columns, the Chinese Ambassador, Yang Houlan, was missing from Kathmandu for some three months or so but yet he arrived a day before the Nepal’s Constituent Assembly body counted its last breath. (Rest in peace).
Whether China had a role in the sad demise of the Nepal CA body or not could be a matter of debate among the academics yet the conjecture was more than significant as things later took shape.
Nevertheless, what could be now presumed is that though China may not have preferred the death of the CA body but yet it has now become more than clear that Beijing too had not digested Nepal being divided into several federal states.
But why China should have an allergy with Nepal having several federal units?
Perhaps China may have concluded that such a schema in Nepal may have its instant direct negative impact on the Chinese territories adjoining Nepali borders in the South.
Yes! That it was this issue which was very clearly and emphatically stated by the visiting Chinese authority Ai Ping while meeting the Indo-pendent leaders that “Nepal should think of devolving power to the grass roots than thinking of dividing the country into several federal units”.
In fact, Mr. Ai Ping suggested the Nepali leaders that meaningful and workable decentralisation of power authority down the villages would be more than enough for Nepal at this stage than to embrace federal units.
The message was clear but yet this should not mean that China preferred the death of the CA body which if remained in existence for some time may have already divided the country into several states.
Does this mean that Beijing was highly impressed with the unequivocal stance taken up by Chitra Bahadur K.C and Kamal Thapa?
Mr. K. C from the very beginning remained against Nepal embracing a federal system of governance.
The sudden dash of Beijing high authority in Nepal just after the ignominious death of the CA body and his complete reluctance in meeting Nepal Prime Minister together with the ceremonial President too must have some meaning.
Informed sources opine that Mr. Ai Ping may have concluded that it would just be a pointless exercise to meet the ones who could never be convinced for the preservation of the Chinese security concerns in Nepal for some understandable political reasons.
Perhaps China doesn’t take some as their “friends”. The message was loud and clear. China has now become selective.
To add insult to injury, Mr. Ai Ping has very graciously invited Chairman Mohan Baidya and his high ranking team to visit Beijing which in many more ways than one tells that China has begun searching friends upon whom she can trust. The search may consume years and years though.
China has now come to its senses. She must have found out as to what she lost in the previous years.
All in all, India is the loser. Dragon will not leave Nepal now in the Indian mercy. Take it for granted.
Mohan Baidya and his team will be an added burden for India as it would be this Nepali new radical team encouraged by Karol Bagh condensed analyses which will boost the sagging morale of the Indian Maoists and beyond. Both the parties across the borders are likely to work together which will definitely persuade other revolutionaries fighting for their genuine rights in other South Asian countries. RIM and COMPOSA will surely come to assist these revolutionaries who have jumped into the scene with a new vigour. Mind it that Mohan Baidya is well equipped with sophisticated weapons. Supply of weapons across the borders can’t be ruled out. The looted weapon appears to be in knowledge of Baidya and his panel as to where it has been kept inside the deep Rolpa jungles and elsewhere.
After all solidarity must be maintained both in words and deeds. Interesting would be to observe how and when the two radicals unite for a declared cause. Or even they will be allowed to meet as they met in Karol Bagh Hotel?
Arundhati Roy will perhaps understand the pains of these People’s War groups scattered in this region and may support their cause in her own way expectedly. That’s all.
For the road: Prachanda and Bhattarai reportedly prefer a divorce now. Bhattarai has sent one special emissary to Delhi demanding its political intervention in Nepali politics in order to save his Chair.
Before summing up, analysts would suggest both Chairman Prachanda and Dr. Bhattarai, to shed some light on the grave allegations made on them and clarify their own versions. People would love to listen from these two Nepali nationalists as to what had happened in effect? Earlier the better.
Written on July 3 but posted on July 7, 2012 with some additions: Ed.