No easy options

As the political crisis in Nepal deepens, Indians are being forced to re-examine their view of a country that they have taken for granted for 60 years, and which is now at a political crossroads. It is easy enough for liberals to support democracy, but the fact is that it is the politicians who mismanaged affairs and allowed much of Nepal to slip into Maoist control in the first place. So, one has to go beyond first principles. But there are no easy choices, and no trouble-free course of action that can be adopted.

Until recently, India had a defining influence over three of its immediate neighbours in South Asia (the Maldives, Bhutan and Nepal), and virtually none in the remaining three (Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka). The first two in the second group feel obliged to counter Indian power by taking China's help. Sri Lanka's close ties with the US have prevented it from doing the same thing. Bhutan is in any case obliged to follow India's lead in foreign policy. And China has nothing as yet to gain from the Maldives. That leaves Nepal, which, sandwiched as it is between India and China, has strategic value for both. Nepal's dependence on India is greater (for access to the sea, and jobs for its citizens), and its politicians have had close links with counterparts in India.

But China has always wanted to wield influence in Kathmandu. In the old days, it sought to buy influence by building roads and supplying weapons (India cried foul some years ago when these included anti-aircraft guns). Now it has been supplying something far more potent: ideas to the people. The result is the massively successful Maoist insurgency and the discrediting of the alternatives--rule by democracy or by the monarchy. Thanks to the clumsiness and overweening ambition of King Gyanendra, who dismissed the elected government last year in February and took power himself, the politicians have formed a coalition in which the Maoists now call the shots. Initially, the Maoists had wanted to abolish the monarchy, but for tactical reasons they have given up that objective. This has enabled the seven-party coalition to deal with them. The politicians have entered into what may be a Faustian pact, and if this new coalition were to come to power with Maoist support or participation, India would not be happy, especially in view of its own Naxalite problem.

This does not leave India with happy choices. India has never had a warm relationship with the monarchy. Besides which, India has always supported democracy everywhere. So the government did the right thing by asking the king to restore democracy, but he has ignored such well-meaning advice. The result today is that he will have to concede more ground than before in order to restore peace. If he fails to do even that, then the die will be cast. Under the circumstances, India will be up against the realisation that its ability to intervene in domestic issues is fraught with danger. It must therefore continue to press for a peaceful resolution of issues, while increasing its level of contact with both the mainstream politicians as well as the Maoists. The danger is that yet another one of India's immediate neighbours will move closer to China. That would lead to the question being asked: is India a regional power or is it merely a power in the region?