Uneasy neighbours

India's perception that King Gyanendra is not favourably disposed towards it suggests that bilateral relations will continue to remain less than friendly.

IT is sad but true that India is viewed with suspicion by most of its immediate neighbours. It takes only a small incident, imagined or otherwise, for anti-India feelings to rise in these countries. For a brief period in the mid-1990s, India's relations with other South Asian countries had improved perceptibly. Non-reciprocal concessions extended to its smaller neighbours under the "Gujral doctrine" - a foreign policy perspective propounded and promoted by I.K. Gujral when he was External Affairs Minister during the United Front regime - gave India a lot of political dividends. This policy was abandoned when the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government came to power and the "big brother" attitude was back in place.

India-Nepal relations plunged to a new low after the hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane that had taken off from the Kathmandu airport in December 1999. The hamhanded response of the Indian government to the crisis inflamed popular sentiment in Nepal. Subsequent events have illustrated the deep antipathy of sections of Nepali society towards India.

The Indian government took four days to send a message of condolence to the new King, Gyanendra, and Prime Minister G.P. Koirala after the Narayanhiti Palace massacre. The messages from Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and President K.R. Narayanan expressed solidarity with Kathmandu in its period of crisis. Vajpayee's letter emphasised King Birendra's "invaluable contribution" to building mutually beneficial ties with India.

There were attempts in some quarters to attribute the unfortunate events in the Himalayan kingdom to a conspiracy hatched in New Delhi and Washington. Baburam Bhattarai, the leader of a Maoist group in Nepal, wrote an article alleging that India's Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United States had a hand in precipitating the tragedy. The allegation did not have many takers in Nepal. The inquiry report, which blames Prince Dipendra for the carnage, seems to have been accepted by the people of Kathmandu, at least for the time being. But it is in the countryside, where the Maoists have a strong base, that anti-India propaganda might have a different impact. The Maoists have an overtly anti-India platform. Given the tattered credibility of the monarchy, it may not be difficult for the Maoist leadership to tap latent anti-India sentiments. The Maoists have targeted Indian-run enterprises and opposed the free movement of Indian citizens and capital in the kingdom. Although formally underground, they have access to the political mainstream. Articles by Maoist leaders and sympathisers appear regularly in the Nepali media. Indian officials claim that sections of the media are funded by forces that are inimical to India.

As it is, the Indian establishment's view of situation in Nepal is alarmist. King Birendra was suspected to have harboured anti-India sentiments and his refusal to use the Army to crack down on the Maoists strengthened the suspicion. When he had absolute power, the King had on occasion taken a tough stance vis-a-vis India. His lack of rapport with Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was well known. When the King decided to buy arms from China in 1988, India clamped a virtual blockade on the landlocked kingdom on the grounds that the arms purchase violated the Indo-Nepal security treaty of 1950.

Apparently, the advent of multi-party democracy in Nepal also did not bring much solace to New Delhi. Prime Minister G.P. Koirala is known to be favourably disposed towards India but he is now considered a "lame duck" bogged down by corruption charges and opposition from within his own party, the Nepali Congress. The Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist Leninist) is widely expected to return to power in the next elections.

The present Indian government views the Communists in Nepal with some suspicion owing to their alleged closeness to Beijing. But when the Communists were in power in the mid-1990s, they were pragmatic in their dealings with New Delhi. When he was Deputy Prime Minister, Communist leader Madhav Nepal signed with India a series of important agreements relating to trade and the sharing of water resources.

It is no secret that New Delhi has reservations about the new King, Gyanendra. On many important issues he is said to have taken an anti-India stance. He is also reputed to be one of the proponents of closer ties with China and Pakistan. Reports in the Nepali media said that he was a reluctant convert to the idea of multi-party democracy. Indian officials think that his multifarious business activities could lead to a "conflict of interests", which might have an adverse impact on governance. Gyanendra had reportedly taken an unhealthy interest in the separatist Gorkhaland movement in the early 1980s. If he orders a crackdown by the Royal Nepal Army on the Maoists, the action might have a ripple effect in India as the Maoists are said to have links with the Maoist Coordination Centre (MCC) in Bihar and the People's War Group (PWG) in Andhra Pradesh and other States.

Indian officials feel that the monarchy will continue to be the "central player" in Nepal politics despite the blow to its credibility after the events of June 1. But to a large extent the fate of the monarchy now depends on the CPN(UML). The view in Delhi is that if the Communists decide to go along with the Palace, the monarchy could be saved. "Centrifugal forces still pay obeisance to the monarch. If they withdraw support, the monarchy will fall to pieces," said an official. According to him, the Crown never lost its authority in the real political sense even after the advent of parliamentary democracy. The Army has always been under the King. Now, with the growing disillusionment of a section of the population with parliamentary democracy, there seem to be some moves to restore full powers to the monarchy. These moves reportedly have the blessings of Gyanendra. Many of the pro-royalist newspapers and organisations are said to be funded by him. According to Indian officials, the Palace has been supporting both the Maoists and right-wing parties in an effort to discredit the parliamentary system. However, the Maoists do not seem to be favourably disposed towards Gyanendra though they were known to have a soft corner for Birendra and Dipendra.

The feeling in New Delhi is that the Gyanendra side of the royal family is not favourably disposed towards India. Indian officials say that having good ties with the monarchy is crucial for bilateral relations. The monarchy has a stake in almost every economic pie. Without the green signal from the Palace, important deals cannot be clinched. A case in point is the Mahakali river project which, if implemented, could generate 6,000 MW. Many other power projects with Nepal are in the pipeline but there is considerable opposition from many quarters, including those close to the Palace. The Maoists have described the plan for joint power projects as a sellout of Nepali national interests.

A small dispute with Nepal relating to the alignment of the western border area called Kalapani remains to be solved. The construction of the Laxmanpur barrage on the Indian side is another contentious issue. Nepal says that the barrage has caused flooding on its side of the border. These are emotive issues for a small country like Nepal.

The 1,751-km border between the two countries is one of the most porous borders in the world. India has alleged that the border areas have become a hotbed of activities of Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI). Indian officials say that of late scores of madrasas (Islamic schools) have sprung up along the border. According to them, militants are trained here and they will infiltrate into India. Eastern Nepal borders the narrow Siliguri corridor, which connects the northeastern region to the rest of India. Indian security forces have seized large quantities of weapons and ammunition of Pakistani origin that were meant for insurgent groups in the northeastern region.

The Nepalese government is unhappy with New Delhi's allegation regarding ISI activities on Nepal's territory. It is also irked by stories in influential Indian magazines and newspapers suggesting that important Nepali politicians, mediapersons and businessmen were being used by Pakistan's intelligence agencies. When the Indian government stopped flights to Nepal following the hijacking of the Indian Airlines plane saying that it was not fully satisfied with the security situation in Kathmandu, that created tremendous unease in Nepal.

The Indian government is also wary of Chinese activities in Nepal. Indian officials admit that China has stopped competing with India for establishing its influence in Nepal since the 1980s. But, they say, there has been a noticeable increase in Chinese engagement in Nepal after Pokhran-I. China is involved in building roads in the Terai region bordering India and in constructing hydel projects. A Chinese official said that India suffered from a "Cold War mindset" and that it viewed everything in black and white terms. "Anything China does in any neighbouring country is viewed in New Delhi as being against India," he said.

A major bilateral issue will be the review of the treaty of 1950. Nepal considers the treaty obsolete and wants important changes incorporated in it. All political parties in Nepal feel that many of its clauses are an affront to their country's dignity. But New Delhi gives the impression of stonewalling a review. On many occasions it has tried to use the treaty to ensure that Kathmandu, owing to its relations with China, does not compromise India's "security concerns".