The Xi-Modi Summit And Nepal

As far as we know, the following exchange didn’t occur during the Wuhan summit between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Maila Baje wouldn’t be surprised if it had:

Xi: Up next is Nepal.

Modi: That’s a sore one for us. And the way they’ve been rubbing it in.

Xi: You can’t blame them, though. They’re almost on an endless campaign for independence from you.

Modi: What haven’t we done for them? We built their first airport, their first highway, their first modern hospital, all those scholarships, all those jobs for Nepalis. Sure, we might have demeaned and denigrated them here and there.

Xi: It’s more than ‘here and there’, from what I hear. Across the board, they feel India can’t stand the fact that they are independent.

Modi: They can’t have it both ways, though. The king, political parties, even the communists, come running to us whenever they’re in trouble. We mediate, they get their throne/chairs back and what’s the next thing everyone does? Indians this, Indians that.

Xi: Maybe the way you micromanage things is the problem. It kind of irks us, too. Take the Maoists, for example. They were your guys throughout the ‘people’s war’. But internationally we got blamed for trying to export revolution. And the irony? Unlike me, Chinese leaders then were trying run as fast as they could away from Mao Zedong. Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson had to keep reminding the world that the Nepali Maoists were giving our man a bad name.

Modi: That was smart wasn’t it?  [Chuckles] Jokes apart, we didn’t know what the palace and the parties were up to once democracy was restored in 1990. We thought the Maoists could be a check on both. But the insurgency got a life of its own, based on the corruption, inefficiencies and callousness of the Nepali state. Now, don’t you start blaming us for excesses of democracy in Nepal.

Xi: The palace massacre was a turning point for us. Birendra kind of understood us both. Look at the way he kept shuffling prime ministers. But even he slipped in 1989-90. His brother was made of a different cloth. Gyanendra meant well, was more assertive, and could have gotten a lot of things done. But he just couldn’t grasp how complex regional dynamics had become since the time of his father and brother. I don’t know about you, but we were really troubled by the way he and his people tried to project the royal takeover as Chinese-backed.

Modi: And the way he ambushed our prime minister on TV in Jakarta over the arms embargo. The antics at the Dhaka SAARC summit. We aren’t fools. We recognized that China had arrived in South Asia long before 2005. Heck, we were eying the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. But there are nicer ways of doing things. In retrospect, Gyanendra tells us he would have done things differently. And that’s a big thing for a king to say. You’ve got to give him that.

Xi: No doubt, he was a man in a hurry.  But we’re a little worried. It looks like you still have plans for him, with all this talk about Hindu statehood. Or are you just trying to keep the political parties in check? [Winks] No hurries. Let’s walk to that bridge with out cups and continue. The cameras have been on for a while now.

Modi: Not sure what to make of this Oli guy, though. In private, he sounds very reasonable about his plans for Nepal and the country’s place in the world. But this unification talk between the UML and the Maoists is really worrying us. To be brutally honest, it has your fingerprints all over it.

Xi: Whoa…

Modi: No, just hear me out. Your ambassador in Kathmandu met a former UML prime minister and openly expressed concern about the delay in the unification.

Xi: No, the Nepali media got it wrong. She did meet Madhav Nepal as part of her regular interactions with the Nepali leadership. Some of my people tell me that you guys engineered that misrepresentation in the Nepali media. But look here, after the fall of the monarchy, we didn’t have a reliable partner. Everyone was either educated or exiled – often both – in India. We thought we might turn the tables on you and even tried cultivating the Maoists. But they seemed too wedded to your intelligence agencies for a modicum of ideological affinity with us. Prachanda outdid Gyanendra in flaunting non-existent Chinese support. We had to cut him loose. After careful thought, we thought a Maoist-UML alliance would be our best bet.

Modi: And you end up choosing the very guy we tried so hard to project the most India-friendly leader in the UML. Man, all those hospital bills for his kidney treatment in Delhi.

Xi: Now that you brought Oli up. We can’t be really sure about him either, can we?

Modi: Oli’s already accusing us of ‘air imperialism’ after the lengths to which I went to be a good host in Delhi. If I remember correctly, he told one of your newspapers that he was building ties with China to extract concessions from us.

Xi: And don’t forget the reporter who interviewed him was Indian.

Modi: Okay [checking his watch], we can’t keep running in circles. You do understand why we consider Nepal to be in our sphere of influence?

Xi: Yes we do. But you, too, have to remember that Nepal was the last tributary to our Qing Court. In China, that still means a lot.

Modi: Maybe we should continue with Nepal next time?

Xi: Do we have a choice?

What’s Leaving Left Unity Behind?

From the way things are going, it sure does look like ethereal elements are trying to prevent the unification of our United Marxist-Leninist (UML) and Maoist factions into that single imposing communist party.
Unity looked like a done deal before last year’s landmark elections. Nepali voters were so impressed by the idea that they preemptively endorsed the effort.
There was some logic there. If Nepal was to proceed irreversibly along the lines of republicanism, secularism and federalism, why not let its organic advocates lead the way? The Maoists articulated the three-pronged agenda most effectively and almost singlehandedly achieved it. After they grew out of their obsession with emulating the Great Helmsman all the way to state capture, a turning point was inevitable.
The Marxist-Leninists, for their part, had given only qualified support to the 1990 Constitution. But they had not given up on people’s multiparty democracy. Moreover, that notion had a more benign ring to it than, say, people’s war. If the new order provided such fertile ground for both, why bother why the once-bitter rivals really decided to join hands.
Alas, if only logic dictated Nepali politics. Today, both sides insist that the Baisakh 9 deadline was never written in stone. Leaders of both parties certainly didn’t sound tentative when they were touting the date till the very end. More seriously, though, they are shifting the goalposts. While senior leaders are giving the impression that they are merely ironing out minor details, their surrogates point to something more pernicious afoot.
UML leader Keshav Badal put things quite vividly the other day. “Opponents of unity are importuning Goddess Dakshinkali, ready with their sacrificial black goat.” But all Badal could do after that was to assure us that unity was unavoidable. Critics of both parties such as Mohan Bikram Singh, too, see a web of national and international conspiracies.
Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba, facing the most serious challenge to his leadership, has begun warning of the emergence of a new totalitarianism. Far from a shriek of desperation, Deuba’s warning sounds like a full-fledged rallying cry. If the Nepali Congress is good at anything, it is at fighting totalitarianism (as long as it’s not within the organization).
In the wider neighborhood, the Indians believe they embraced Prime Minister K.P. Oli tightly enough to have adequately tamed him. The Chinese must be having much more than passing interest in what actually might have transpired between Oli and Prime Minister Narendra Modi during their one-on-one session.
How successful was Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali in assuring Beijing of Kathmandu’s continuing commitment to its northern engagement? That would depend on how soon Oli ends up visiting China. If early reports trickling out of the Chinese capital are to be believed, Beijing has told us that henceforth it would take into consideration New Delhi’s sensitivities before making investment decisions in Nepal.
The impact of the Modi-Xi Jinping talks in Wuhan will no doubt play out here with its own ebullient rationality. If Oli happens to find himself playing host to Modi in Kathmandu before any northern sojourn, well, that’s for then.
For now, official Beijing has reverted to praising the virtues of trilateral cooperation, while the Indians still can’t stop thinking out aloud how they can beat China in Nepal. Maybe they’ve figured out one way.

Triumph Without Victory

Nepal’s most powerful leader ever returned from a triumphant visit to India to realize that he wouldn’t be able to take a victory lap.
Barely months in power, the Maoists – Prime Minister K.P. Oli’s capricious coalition partners – are peeved by his unilateralist approach to governance. It looks like the transfer of top bureaucrats is only one issue on a long list of Maoist grievances that could easily get longer should the need arise.
The prime minister isn’t helping himself, either. If the murder attempt on Acharya Srinivas carries any portent, Oli’s response to a delegation of the guru’s followers only darkened it. Almost implying that the acharya brought the attack upon himself by backing the monarchy, Oli added much more than insult to injury.
A law-and-order issue was already politicized when Home Minister Ram Bahadur Thapa Badal – the top Maoist representative in the government – suggested the possibility of outbreaks of religious and ethnic clashes engineered by unnamed forces for equally unnamed ends. Oli served to raise the rhetorical temperature when he subsequently exhorted the security forces to remain alert against domestic threats posed by terrorism, ethnic militancy and extremism.
The expected immediate visit to China aimed at underlining his government’s policy of equiproximity/equidistance our giant neighbors receded with Oli’s arrival from the Indian capital. Foreign Minister Pradip Gyawali’s flew up north for preparations, leaving his boss busy inaugurating and inspecting Chinese-aided projects for now.
India’s top expert on Nepal, Professor Sukh Deo Muni, had publicly warned that the Maoists might complicate Oli’s desire to recalibrate ties with India. Almost on cue, Home Minister Badal took advantage of Oli’s absence and convened the Maoists ministers in a conclave whose import has barely begun to trickle out.
For now, the Maoists have got their preferred men to head the two police forces, Thus the former rebels may be emboldened to seek greater concessions before their unification with Oli’s Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist-Leninist (UML). That script has taken a 180-degree turn following Oli’s return from Delhi.
While Maoist supremo Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda remains largely conciliatory, representatives of lower rungs of the organization have grown increasingly vocal in asserting the principal of equality as the basis for unity. Reference to the ‘people’s war’ in the founding documents of the new party has returned as a non-negotiable precondition among more hardline quarters.
It’s not just the opposition Nepali Congress that’s making fun of Oli’s ‘reset’. Some members of Oli’s party have developed enough confidence to question whether the putative sea lane from the south would stream in saffron soldiers.
Oli doesn’t need to hear from the Chinese how the geopolitical equations have shifted in the past few weeks. Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval met with senior Chinese officials ahead of separate visits by Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj and Defense Minister Nirmala Sitharaman later this month.
An Indian Embassy statement described the discussions as having “covered a wide agenda spanning bilateral, regional and international issues of mutual interest”. Bland as that may sound, the message contains enough for everyone.
And if our prime minister can read the tea leaves, so can his adversaries.

When It’s All In The Mind...

Photo courtesy: MEAIndia/Twitter

All the right notes were struck in such perfect tenor that you’d be forgiven for suspecting the sonorousness of it all.
Sure, there were discordant clatters conveyed through Indian news media reports suggesting New Delhi’s unwillingness to go along with Nepal’s desire to revive South Asian regional cooperation or to purchase Nepali electricity produced through Chinese investments. But those were intended more for audiences in Islamabad and Beijing, respectively.
Prime Minister K.P. Oli and his host and counterpart, Narendra Modi, seemed committed to turning a new page in bilateral relations. A partnership of equals – at least measured in terms of sovereign nationhood – has been Nepal’s underlying aspiration. This time, India did all it could rhetorically, symbolically and on paper to affirm its intention to move ahead in that fashion.
Still, the song was too silky-smooth to be entirely soothing. Skepticism has strong roots in the past. And that past is littered with the debris of generations of dashed hopes. The fate of the new beginning independent India sought with the democratic government of 1951, the elected government of B.P. Koirala in 1959 and the interim governments of 1990 and 2006 need not be rehashed here.
The backroom deals New Delhi engaged with the Rana oligarchy and Shah monarchy till the very end, only to renege on them at the first convenient opportunity only served to deepen our skepticism. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh broke protocol and welcomed Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala at the airport in 2006, where he called the distinguished visitor a South Asian statesman. Two years later, Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal famously spoke of kram-bhangata (discontinuity) in Nepal-India relations.
Skepticism remains no less severe in India. From the Munis to the Mehtas, Nepal experts there are scratching their heads over Oli’s intentions vis-à-vis China and Pakistan. Domestically, will the Maoists betray Oli? The more traditionally minded have already consulted India’s national horoscope for 2075. With mysterious Rahu in Cancer in the 11th house of neighbors, can Nepal’s words be taken for granted?
Or can India’s? Oli must be smarter than to be taken in by Indian adulations over his heading a government as strong as King Mahendra’s. For the analogy is misplaced. It was B.P. Koirala’s elected government that commanded such broad electoral support. What happened next didn’t have to be repeated by anyone in New Delhi.
If anything, India and Nepal need to address the underlying psychology gripping their relations. The Indians need to get over the fact that Kathmandu managed to remain outside the Indian Union in 1947 when Kerala was in. Nepalis, for their part, need to come up with something more than ‘non-Indianness’ as evidence of their independence.
The two countries are closely linked and will continue to be so. But that should neither be a cause for asphyxiation nor amalgamation. Third, fourth and any number of other parties will emerge to affect this equation, benignly as well as malevolently. Nepal and India can handle such challenges with the resilience only they can inject bilaterally into their relationship.
How much Oli’s visit did or did not contribute to that process remains to be seen. In the meantime, we can applaud and be apprehensive of the visit at the same time, as long as we are mindful of maintaining our inner poise.