[Show all top banners]

gaule_hero
Replies to this thread:

More by gaule_hero
What people are reading
Subscribers
:: Subscribe
Back to: Kurakani General Refresh page to view new replies
 "Nepal's China-Card" - An interesting article by Siddhi B. Ranjitkar
[VIEWED 1389 TIMES]
SAVE! for ease of future access.
Posted on 01-17-06 8:10 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print.html?path=HL0601/S00095.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nepal's China-Card
Monday, 16 January 2006
'A favorite old formula of autocrats for playing China against India'
By Siddhi B. Ranjitkar

Why could Nepalese autocrats play a China-card effectively in the regional politics for continuing their unjust and undemocratic regime? Whenever Nepal had democratically elected governments, the Chinese autocrats lost the partners in autocratic governance giving way to the democratic countries such as India, the US, the UK and other European democratic governments to have more influence on the elected governments in Nepal than the Chinese Government. Naturally, often the Chinese Autocratic Proletarian Government got sidelined, and found ignored by elected governments in Nepal. The elected governments in Nepal tended to loosen their control over the Tibetan refugees in Nepal, and let them freely travel and engage in their activities for freedom in Tibet. Hence, the Chinese autocratic proletarian government always found democracy in Nepal as a threat to their oppressive rule in Tibet.

Whenever the Nepalese autocrats played the China-card, the first victims were the Tibetans fighting for freedom from the autocratic rule of the Chinese proletarian leaders, and another victim, of course, was the democracy in Nepal. This was true in 1960 when the former king Mahendra played the China-card to kill the infant democracy, and in 2005 when the current king Gyanendra played the China-card to throttle the flourishing democracy.

After the unification of small kingdoms and principalities into a present-day Nepal, King Prithvi Narayan Shah said, "Nepal is a yam sandwiched between two large stones."[1] He was referring to India to the South and China to the North as two large stones, and Nepal as a yam in between them. He left his advice to his future generations to follow the policy of not aligning with only one side - either to the north or to the south in other words to achieve a good balance between them.

In balancing between the two powerful countries - one to the south and another to the north, the rulers of Nepal had sometimes played one against another when the situation favorable to do so arose. For example, in 1960s, king Mahendra played a China-card effectively for suppressing the opposition political activities on the borders with India. King Mahendra told the then-Indian Ambassador Shriman Narayan "Your Excellency, I am obliged for the sincere steps you have taken to bring about peace on our southern border. There are still a few stray cases of trespasses and conflicts here and there. But I do realize that it is not very easy to control such incidents completely along the long Indo-Nepal border of several hundred miles. I am sure your honest efforts would continue. On my part, I and my government have now decided to request China to abandon the eastern sector of the East-West Highway and initiate a fresh survey for another road somewhere in the middle regions of Nepal."[2] At that time, Indian authorities did not want Chinese closer to Indian borders.

Indian Ambassador, Shriman Narayan replied, "I personally visited the Indo-Nepal border quite extensively and asked the district authorities to restrain effectively the Nepalese citizens from indulging in undesirable activities against the king and his government from the Indian soil. I also met a number of workers of the Nepali Congress in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Bengal and plainly told them that India would no longer allow them to operate against the friendly kingdom."[3]
King Mahendra suppressed the voices of Tibetan refugees in Nepal, and stopped any political activities of them from Nepal against he Peoples' Republic of China in 1960s. Later on, King Birendra also eliminated the Khampa rebels fighting against the Chinese rule in Tibet from the northern border of Nepal in 1970s.

Before taking over the executive power on February 1, 2005, King Gyanendra shut down the offices of Representatives of Dalai Lama and of Tibetan Refugees in Nepal. Obviously, this was done to keep the Chinese Government happy. The king was sure that India and the western countries would not support his actions of usurping the power from the elected government. So, he wanted to keep at least one neighbor happy and in his favor.

Then came the February-1 putsch staged by King Gyanendra keeping the whole country in darkness for a whole week by snapping communication lines and closing the media. Describing it as an internal matter, Beijing refrained from taking any stand on the King Gyanendra’s February-1 takeover. Thus, China has taken a friendly attitude toward the king in Nepal.

India, the US, the UK and the international community as a whole condemned the putsch and suspended the military supplies to the Royal Nepalese Army. The king could not convince the international community that his army would not use the arms and ammunition against the people fighting for fundamental human rights and democracy in the country. So, the embargo remained.

Pursuant to the Nepal-India Treaty of 1950, Nepal needs to consult with India to import arms and ammunition from the third party country. At that time, Nepal and India had this treaty done to cater the needs for countering the threat from the People's Republic of China that had captured Tibet by force in 1949. Pursuant to this treaty, India could halt or check any arms and ammunition passing through its territory to Nepal. India did not have any means to check the arms supply to Nepal by China if they came from China to Nepal through Tibet.
 
Posted on 01-17-06 11:10 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

To me, the Royal government's foreign policy -- particularly vis-a-vis India vs. China -- seems to be driven by antiquated principles and policies that are rapidly loosing their relevance in the modern political arena. Therefore, I find both the Royal governement's tactic of playing the China card and the above writer's belief in it's relevance amiss.

It's economics, stupid! The militaristic and sensational national politics approach to international relations are of far less importance in today's world, if not completely irrelevant. Accordingly, I believe the dynamics of Indo-China relations have also evolved far above military, borders and nationalist zeals. China, with arguably the fastest growing economy in the world, has much more to gain by improving it's relations with India, another country of promising economic growth, than by risking to sour it over a tiny, poor, meaningless (in terms of affecting global politics) Nepal.

Like everything else up this Royal government's sleeves, the China card, as it is perceived by narrow-minded oldies in the government, therefore, belongs to the 1960's, which would obviously have absolutely no relevance whatsoever in modern world. The Royal government should take no easy breath over China's stance on Nepal as an "internal matter," for that is only standard in Chinese foreign policy when it comes to troubled countries, be it Iraq under Saddam, Serbia under Milosevic, Sudan, or Nepal.

Having said that, I still believe China's relatively nonchalant approach to Nepal will change if the Indo-Nepal troubles rise upto the level of territory -- territorial encroachment by India into Nepal, if it becomes real and threatening, I am of the belief that it would significantly raise Chinese eye brows. This is one of the reasons why I do not buy Royalist argument that India would take over Nepal should hte royal government give way to increased democracy -- New Delhi too has much more to lose by irritating Beijing over Kathmandu. Indo-Chinese economic benefits are mutual.
 
Posted on 01-17-06 11:15 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Clash of powers
By PURAN P BISTA

Immaculately, Nepal appears to be heading towards the Cambodian-like conflict where killing was a part of the strategy to grab the power. China, along with the United States and the former Soviet Union, helped create Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Beijing, indeed, was the group's chief patron when it held power from 1975 through 1978 and killed more than 1.7 million people, a quarter of Cambodia's population, in the quest to create an agrarian Maoist utopia.
Beijing looks eager to create a political space with a hope to abbreviate Delhi's political influence over Kath-mandu. For this several factors are compelling China to back the monarchy. India and Pakistan have resumed talks that consistently focus on trade and commerce. Both countries agreed to begin bus service between Srinagar and Muzzafarbad. Now both talk of moving beyond the Samjhauta express. This has certainly helped both the countries to come closer than ever before since both agreed to sort out their differences bilaterally.

Secondly, the sacking of Khin Nyunt by General Than Shawe in October 2004 has changed Myanmar's equation with two giants in India's favor. Delhi's growing influence in Myanmar has cost Beijing's military ties with Yangon.

China's dwindling influence over the Burmese military junta since the Khin Nyunt's ouster is seen as a setback to China's role in Myanmar. Beijing viewed Than Shawe's India visit in 2005 as a tilt towards Delhi's favor. In a sense, India's growing influence in Myanmar is limiting China's access to the Indian Ocean.

In Nepal, the key players involved in resolving or escalating violence are China, India and the United States. China has backed the monarchy instead of the Maoists. China says the Maoists have tarnished the image of Mao. To show China's overt move, it has supplied weapons to a conflict-ridden country.

On the other hand, India has backed the parliamentary forces and even asked the king to restore democracy if he wants Delhi resume the arms supply. That India has been behind every change of political guards in Nepal since 1951 cannot be ignored here. India's role in Nepal's internal affairs, no matter how the royalists and pro-Panchayat elite interpret it, has been politically pious. And that India could have sikkimized Nepal had it deemed necessary in 1950 is still a bitter pill to swallow.

Similarly, had India not engaged Pakistan in East Pakistan in 1970 that led to the signing of Shimla agreement to liberate East Pakistanis and create Bangladesh, the Panchayat lords would have found no political space in Nepal now. The survival of Panchayat in Nepal was the outcome of the 1962 Indo-China war as well as the Indo-Pakistan wars over Kashmir.

Since the breakdown of the cease-fire, the two warring factions have intensified violence. The international community wanted the king to join hands with the parliamentary forces. But the king's unwillingness to do so has forced the seven party alliance to reach an understanding with the Maoists.

This illustrates that the Nepali players who crave for power have not learnt the political game of compromise yet. It has to do with the immaturity, incompetence and ineptitude of our political leadership rather than anything else.

The institution of monarchy that represents obsolete ideology has pushed the conflict to the fore. The parliamentary forces fighting for the people's rights found the Maoists a new ally to reduce, if not eliminate, the size of the monarchy that has ruled this country with iron hands over 237-years. So long as the Nepalis are forced to walk with the baggage of constructive monarchy, there will be no solution to the political standoff because it is obvious that constructive monarchy is a costly affair.

When cruelty is a means of sucking the poor, compromise does not come into the minds of the Nepali rulers. The Indian Maharajas of over four hundred princely states surrendered their power to the people during the partition in 1947. The majority of the Indian rulers were pious Hindus so it could happen.

Unfortunately, our successive Maharajas believe in power that breeds poverty, inequality and, of course, illiteracy. Now they have gone to the extent of terming fellow Nepalis perpetrators, traitors and terrorists. Many civilians killed are innocent in the eyes of law but terrorists in the eyes of the state. We have not reached, though, to that point and counted the cost of the Maoist insurgency.

Now China must realize what the institution of monarchy represents. The supply of arms to the royal regime as it did to Pol Pot in the 70s and to the Burmese junta in the late 80s will only escalate the conflict.

Nepal is obviously neither Myanmar nor is it Cambodia. Seventy percent of the people living in Nepal have direct contacts with the Indians. And the age old ties between Indian and Nepali peoples cannot be snapped. Our ties are natural and inalienable.

In a nutshell, the supply of weapons to the royal regime has certainly created an anti-China group in Nepal. And Nepal may become a new platform for the free Tibetan forces once democracy is restored. China cannot shut the mouth of the Tibetans living in Nepal who are fighting for the liberation of their country. Beijing must think twice before burning its fingers.

http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=62872
 


Please Log in! to be able to reply! If you don't have a login, please register here.

YOU CAN ALSO



IN ORDER TO POST!




Within last 365 days
Recommended Popular Threads Controvertial Threads
श्राद्द
TPS Re-registration
सेक्सी कविता - पार्ट २
What are your first memories of when Nepal Television Began?
पाप न साप घोप्टो पारि थाप !!
पुलिसनी संग - आज शनिवार - अन्तिम भाग
निगुरो थाहा छ ??
ChatSansar.com Naya Nepal Chat
Lets play Antakshari...........
What Happened to Dual Citizenship Bill
Basnet or Basnyat ??
Sajha has turned into MAGATs nest
NRN card pros and cons?
मेरो अम्रिका यात्रा -२
Do nepalese really need TPS?
कता जादै छ नेपाली समाज ??
susta manasthiti lai ke bhanchan english ma?
कृष्ण नै अन्तिम सत्य
पुलिसनी संग - आज शुक्रवार - भाग २
Will MAGA really start shooting people?
Nas and The Bokas: Coming to a Night Club near you
राजदरबार हत्या काण्ड बारे....
Mr. Dipak Gyawali-ji Talk is Cheap. US sends $ 200 million to Nepal every year.
Harvard Nepali Students Association Blame Israel for hamas terrorist attacks
TPS Update : Jajarkot earthquake
is Rato Bangala school cheating?
NOTE: The opinions here represent the opinions of the individual posters, and not of Sajha.com. It is not possible for sajha.com to monitor all the postings, since sajha.com merely seeks to provide a cyber location for discussing ideas and concerns related to Nepal and the Nepalis. Please send an email to admin@sajha.com using a valid email address if you want any posting to be considered for deletion. Your request will be handled on a one to one basis. Sajha.com is a service please don't abuse it. - Thanks.

Sajha.com Privacy Policy

Like us in Facebook!

↑ Back to Top
free counters