I will begin with a question. Why did British never conquer Nepal? At its peak, the British Empire spread from Afghanistan to Thailand with only Nepal and Bhutan out of its ambit which is all the more surprising because of their strategic location. Occupying Nepal and Bhutan would have given a huge strategic advantage in containing China during the decade long Anglo-China wars (also known as Opium War). The theories about inhospitable terrain, Gurkha valor are peddled to create an image of invincibility etc which doesn't hold water. The reality is Nepal and Bhutan were not buffer states. Tibet was the buffer state between China and the British India and that fact changed after Chinese invasion and occupation of Tibet in 1949-50. India turning a blind eye to this aggression was a blunder more Himalayan than the mistakes made in Kashmir. Tibet acting as a buffer state, Northern side of Himalaya being less porous than the southern side were the factors why British left Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan to themselves and were content with having a Resident in these capitals.
The idea of India as an ancient civilization and the boundaries of modern Indian state are two different things. The former dates couple of millennia and has boundaries that kept shrinking and expanding with varying frequency where as the latter is what the British handed over while exiting the subcontinent. Interesting fact is that there are territories and land parcels that were never part of the "idea of India" through the ages but were conjoined with the Indian state in 1947. For example much of North East was acquired by East India company from Burma and through British got added to India. Apart from references to Kamakhya, our ancient texts have no mention of any place or events in the North East, none of our literature has any characters from North East and so on. We don't even have to go too far in the past to figure out what India considers its territories. As late as 1911, when our national anthem was composed, it references all territories Indian (including Sindh which after partition is in Pakistan) but nonesoever in North East (not even Assam by the way). We can give benefit of doubt that Assam and Tripura were a part of the Bengal province, so they are kind of covered. But thats not true of other North Eastern states. The reason why I am belaboring this point is, that the 8 km tract of land that is currently disputed by Nepal is one such land parcel that was not a part of India historically. British won it in the Anglo-Nepal war and ever since it has remained in India.
The "1950 Indo-Nepal Treat of Peace and Friendship" Article 8 "invalidates and cancels all previous Treaties, agreements, and engagements entered into on behalf of India between the British Government and the Government of Nepal". This was a landmark treaty and is the basic framework in Indo-Nepal cooperation and multiple smaller agreements on river water sharing, financial packages, arms supply agreements have branched out from here. This treaty envisaged reciprocal open border (compared with Indians need a domestic visa called Inner Line Permit while visiting 4 north eastern states), property rights, participational in economic activity to the citizen of both the states (something that Indians don't have in multiple places within the country by the way - Andaman, Lakshadweep, Uttarakhand, Ladhak, Kashmir, Nort East). Among other details, this treaty magnaminously created provison for settling boundary disputes amicably. This clause is very likely to be quoted by Nepal during negotiations or international arbitration when it comes to that.
Cultural ties with Nepal run very deep, primarily due to its Hindu roots which remained largely unaffected (I wanted to use the word uncontaminated :-) during the seven centuries of Muslim rule in India. Broadly speaking the Shaivaite influence and tradition in Nepal is stronger than the Vaishnavite tradition. The Pashupatinath temple in Kathmandu has preserved some of the older Shaivaite practices which have been diluted over the years in other parts of India. That explains the fact that why till date the Purohits in a majority of Jyotirlingas, Shakteepeths as well as of princely states that follow Shaivaite tradition (Gwalior, Holkar, Baroda etc) come from Kathmandu. As a reciprocal gesture, the coronation of the Nepalse kings were done by priests from Mahakal (Ujjain). Many Indian princely states have family ties to the royal Nepal family till date through marriage alliances.
Geographically Nepal has two broad entities. The northern part of the country is mountainous and is home to indigenous Nepalese. The southern part, called Terai has a large influx of people from Indian mainland (called Madhesis). The general hardship of life is lesser in Terai which allowed for profitable farming, enterprise and financial activity leading to relative prosperity of the Madhesi group, which over a period of time lead to economic and political dominance. The Madhesi politicians and political parties that enjoyed power had a definite pro-India tilt and the titular head, the Kind of Nepal, was anyways dependent on priests from India for divine sanction.
There was an under current of resentment among the indigenous Nepalese for long which has started to find expression in the last two decades. The assassination of the last king and eventual abandonment of constitutional monarchy in favour of constitutional democracy need to be seen as a part of this cycle. This further accelerated the revival of nationalistic sentiments. Marginalised communities and political parties started capturing power on the nationalistic anti-India agenda (lead by Prachanda, Dhumal etc). They didn't last long as the Old Guard wasn't ready to throw in the towel and managed to topple these governments (of course with help from India).
Concurrently in the last two decades, India has been witnessing revival of nationalistic sentiment. That has found expression in a more assertive and aggressive foreign policy moves which are a significant deviation from the past. Some of these moves backfired and are major disasters. A charitable explanation of these moves can be that the hawkish ministers misread the ground realities and committed errors of judgement. A more critical interpretation is that foreign policy setbacks were part of the cost to be offset by consolidation of nationalist votebank, a time tested ploy which many conservative governments around the world deploy from time to time.
The 3 month long blockade of Nepal was one such disaster. Nepal's dependency on India for even basic needs is almost absolute. When the Madhesis saw the power slipping away from their hands decisively and irreversibly, for self preservation they had no option but to send SOS to Delhi. Delhi obliged by bringing not only the Nepalse government but the entire nation to its knees. Extremely short sighted move with short term benefits with long term costs and far reaching consequences. As soon as Nepal got up, it went straight into the arms of an obliging China which has been lying in wait for so long. China played its cards deftly and channelized and consolidated all anti-India sentiment, and diverted it towards the Nepalese Communist Party which won a landslide and is now headed by Oli who has a vitriolic hatred for India. Within months billion dollar agreements have been signed between Nepal and China, most important among them being building motorable roads connecting Nepal and China which will eliminate the connectivity handicap that Nepal has. The terrain is tough as it will pass through the mighty Himalayas. But China is no stranger to construction miracles and it is a matter of months not years when the routes will be operational.
India has a problem on its borders - actually a problem with a country with whom it doesn't even have a regulated border. With China's incursion in Nepal a given, a huge chunk of our resources will be required to man another 800 km long border to keep our country secure. With the stakes high, India can't even back down and revert to status quo and having a friendly relation with Nepal. That would mean toning down the aggressive rhetoric which is something the current government is not known for. The script is far too similar with what hapenned with Bangladesh (Teen Bigha Corridor discussion was the catalyst), Sri Lanka (India demanding rights to fish in Sri Lankan waters) and Maldives (when we started dictating how they should run the country). With an exception of Maldives, where a counter coup helped pull things backs to an extent, we are now surrounded by neighbours who have moved from friendly (Nepal) to passive (Sri Lanka, Bangladesh) to actively hostile.
Nepal is only a decoy in the game played by China. It is finally achieving its foreign policy objectives through two doctrines - Five Fingers and String of Pearls. Looks like China had identified India's potential long before India itself. As early as in the 50s, Chairman Mao came up with these two doctrines, one territorial the other maritime to contain and destabilize India. He referred to Chine being the fist with the five fingers being Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Arunachal which would be used to "finger" India for the lack of better word. String of Pearls is the maritime version which has its objective of establishing pockets of influence dotting the Indian Ocean like a necklace which would be used to strangle India's neck. China setting up bases on unclaimed Islands in the Indian Ocean along with increasing influence in Sri Lanka, Maldives etc is the implementation of this doctrine.
What response options does India have? It would not serve much purpose treating the symptoms (engaging with Nepal, Sri Lanka etc). India has to locate and needle China's underbelly, its vulnerable spots. India hasn't invested anything in influencing the discourse in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan which are hot spots for China. India doesn't even rake up the Tibet issue fearing China upping the ante on Ladakh or Kashmir. Currently where China is most vulnerable is the Xinjiang province where the Uigur issue is escalating. But due to domestic political compulsions India cannot be seen to espousing a Muslim cause which is at the root of Xinjiang problem. Indian polity has a long way to go before it can graduate from a sentiment and identity based polity to "Realpolitik" where hard nosed realities dictate your choices.
The idea of India as an ancient civilization and the boundaries of modern Indian state are two different things. The former dates couple of millennia and has boundaries that kept shrinking and expanding with varying frequency where as the latter is what the British handed over while exiting the subcontinent. Interesting fact is that there are territories and land parcels that were never part of the "idea of India" through the ages but were conjoined with the Indian state in 1947. For example much of North East was acquired by East India company from Burma and through British got added to India. Apart from references to Kamakhya, our ancient texts have no mention of any place or events in the North East, none of our literature has any characters from North East and so on. We don't even have to go too far in the past to figure out what India considers its territories. As late as 1911, when our national anthem was composed, it references all territories Indian (including Sindh which after partition is in Pakistan) but nonesoever in North East (not even Assam by the way). We can give benefit of doubt that Assam and Tripura were a part of the Bengal province, so they are kind of covered. But thats not true of other North Eastern states. The reason why I am belaboring this point is, that the 8 km tract of land that is currently disputed by Nepal is one such land parcel that was not a part of India historically. British won it in the Anglo-Nepal war and ever since it has remained in India.
The "1950 Indo-Nepal Treat of Peace and Friendship" Article 8 "invalidates and cancels all previous Treaties, agreements, and engagements entered into on behalf of India between the British Government and the Government of Nepal". This was a landmark treaty and is the basic framework in Indo-Nepal cooperation and multiple smaller agreements on river water sharing, financial packages, arms supply agreements have branched out from here. This treaty envisaged reciprocal open border (compared with Indians need a domestic visa called Inner Line Permit while visiting 4 north eastern states), property rights, participational in economic activity to the citizen of both the states (something that Indians don't have in multiple places within the country by the way - Andaman, Lakshadweep, Uttarakhand, Ladhak, Kashmir, Nort East). Among other details, this treaty magnaminously created provison for settling boundary disputes amicably. This clause is very likely to be quoted by Nepal during negotiations or international arbitration when it comes to that.
Cultural ties with Nepal run very deep, primarily due to its Hindu roots which remained largely unaffected (I wanted to use the word uncontaminated :-) during the seven centuries of Muslim rule in India. Broadly speaking the Shaivaite influence and tradition in Nepal is stronger than the Vaishnavite tradition. The Pashupatinath temple in Kathmandu has preserved some of the older Shaivaite practices which have been diluted over the years in other parts of India. That explains the fact that why till date the Purohits in a majority of Jyotirlingas, Shakteepeths as well as of princely states that follow Shaivaite tradition (Gwalior, Holkar, Baroda etc) come from Kathmandu. As a reciprocal gesture, the coronation of the Nepalse kings were done by priests from Mahakal (Ujjain). Many Indian princely states have family ties to the royal Nepal family till date through marriage alliances.
Geographically Nepal has two broad entities. The northern part of the country is mountainous and is home to indigenous Nepalese. The southern part, called Terai has a large influx of people from Indian mainland (called Madhesis). The general hardship of life is lesser in Terai which allowed for profitable farming, enterprise and financial activity leading to relative prosperity of the Madhesi group, which over a period of time lead to economic and political dominance. The Madhesi politicians and political parties that enjoyed power had a definite pro-India tilt and the titular head, the Kind of Nepal, was anyways dependent on priests from India for divine sanction.
There was an under current of resentment among the indigenous Nepalese for long which has started to find expression in the last two decades. The assassination of the last king and eventual abandonment of constitutional monarchy in favour of constitutional democracy need to be seen as a part of this cycle. This further accelerated the revival of nationalistic sentiments. Marginalised communities and political parties started capturing power on the nationalistic anti-India agenda (lead by Prachanda, Dhumal etc). They didn't last long as the Old Guard wasn't ready to throw in the towel and managed to topple these governments (of course with help from India).
Concurrently in the last two decades, India has been witnessing revival of nationalistic sentiment. That has found expression in a more assertive and aggressive foreign policy moves which are a significant deviation from the past. Some of these moves backfired and are major disasters. A charitable explanation of these moves can be that the hawkish ministers misread the ground realities and committed errors of judgement. A more critical interpretation is that foreign policy setbacks were part of the cost to be offset by consolidation of nationalist votebank, a time tested ploy which many conservative governments around the world deploy from time to time.
The 3 month long blockade of Nepal was one such disaster. Nepal's dependency on India for even basic needs is almost absolute. When the Madhesis saw the power slipping away from their hands decisively and irreversibly, for self preservation they had no option but to send SOS to Delhi. Delhi obliged by bringing not only the Nepalse government but the entire nation to its knees. Extremely short sighted move with short term benefits with long term costs and far reaching consequences. As soon as Nepal got up, it went straight into the arms of an obliging China which has been lying in wait for so long. China played its cards deftly and channelized and consolidated all anti-India sentiment, and diverted it towards the Nepalese Communist Party which won a landslide and is now headed by Oli who has a vitriolic hatred for India. Within months billion dollar agreements have been signed between Nepal and China, most important among them being building motorable roads connecting Nepal and China which will eliminate the connectivity handicap that Nepal has. The terrain is tough as it will pass through the mighty Himalayas. But China is no stranger to construction miracles and it is a matter of months not years when the routes will be operational.
India has a problem on its borders - actually a problem with a country with whom it doesn't even have a regulated border. With China's incursion in Nepal a given, a huge chunk of our resources will be required to man another 800 km long border to keep our country secure. With the stakes high, India can't even back down and revert to status quo and having a friendly relation with Nepal. That would mean toning down the aggressive rhetoric which is something the current government is not known for. The script is far too similar with what hapenned with Bangladesh (Teen Bigha Corridor discussion was the catalyst), Sri Lanka (India demanding rights to fish in Sri Lankan waters) and Maldives (when we started dictating how they should run the country). With an exception of Maldives, where a counter coup helped pull things backs to an extent, we are now surrounded by neighbours who have moved from friendly (Nepal) to passive (Sri Lanka, Bangladesh) to actively hostile.
Nepal is only a decoy in the game played by China. It is finally achieving its foreign policy objectives through two doctrines - Five Fingers and String of Pearls. Looks like China had identified India's potential long before India itself. As early as in the 50s, Chairman Mao came up with these two doctrines, one territorial the other maritime to contain and destabilize India. He referred to Chine being the fist with the five fingers being Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Arunachal which would be used to "finger" India for the lack of better word. String of Pearls is the maritime version which has its objective of establishing pockets of influence dotting the Indian Ocean like a necklace which would be used to strangle India's neck. China setting up bases on unclaimed Islands in the Indian Ocean along with increasing influence in Sri Lanka, Maldives etc is the implementation of this doctrine.
What response options does India have? It would not serve much purpose treating the symptoms (engaging with Nepal, Sri Lanka etc). India has to locate and needle China's underbelly, its vulnerable spots. India hasn't invested anything in influencing the discourse in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan which are hot spots for China. India doesn't even rake up the Tibet issue fearing China upping the ante on Ladakh or Kashmir. Currently where China is most vulnerable is the Xinjiang province where the Uigur issue is escalating. But due to domestic political compulsions India cannot be seen to espousing a Muslim cause which is at the root of Xinjiang problem. Indian polity has a long way to go before it can graduate from a sentiment and identity based polity to "Realpolitik" where hard nosed realities dictate your choices.
No comments:
Post a Comment