The Kantipur Publication newsprint held by Indian
authorities at Kolkata port is a jingoistic policy of the government of
India acting in a dysfunctional way rather than protecting the security
of the state according to international law.A recent debate by
Nepal’s Parliament concerning 1,000 metric tons of the Kantipur
Publication’s printing materials, imported from Canada and South Korea
that wee held by Indian authorities at Kolkata port is noteworthy.
Although India’s client politicians of Nepal may ultimately accept what
India decides over the imported goods, I am inclined to join with the
leaders within and outside the Parliament, demanding the immediate
release of the newsprint. This is an abuse of right by the Indian regime
and it must be condemned, demanding due respect for international law
of transit and trade, including the right of land-locked states’ access
to and from the sea.
As a private enterprise of the land-locked
Nepal, the Kantipur Publication had to import the said materials via
India. According to international transit rules, public or private
entities of Nepal have right to import goods, using Nepal’s right of
access to and from the sea, via Kolkata port of India. Such a right is
well established by international legal norms, the Law of the Sea
Convention and Nepal-India Treaty of Transit and Trade.
As a
transit state for Nepal, India has right to security but it is not
entitled to abuse such right as it pleases. As a report suggests, India
is currently investigating the containers carrying the Kantipur
newsprint. Is Nepal a belligerent party to India? Or is this retaliation
by India against the Kantipur Publication which published reports about
the machine readable passport (MRP) deal between the governments of
Nepal and India, but which was dismissed by the Parliament of Nepal? The
bottom line is that one cannot in any way argue everything as security,
and it is absurd to consider newspaper printing material as a security
matter, denying the innocent passage for non-military goods in violation
of international norms and customary as well as treaty practices. This
is clearly an illegal act of the government of India.
Right to
security is not a one sided right; if India has the right to its
security so has Nepal and when and if such right is to be interpreted
the same rule must be applied equally. Some facts speak for themselves
on how India is misinterpreting the security, as well as using its
dominant military, economic and geographic position against Nepal.
Some
months ago the Head of the Spacetime Network, Jamim Shah, was killed in
broad daylight in Kathmandu, at the order of an Indian criminal, jailed
in Lucknow, in India; recently the Executive Director of BP Koirala
Memorial Cancer Hospital, Dr. Bhaktaman Shrestha, was kidnapped and
later released in exchange of 3.5 kg gold to the abductors, also in
Lucknow, in India.
The two mentioned criminal activities,
planned in and executed from India, are directly related to the security
of Nepali citizens. Has the government of India taken any actions
against the two very recent criminal activities committed from its
territory against Nepal? More important questions are what kind of check
India has over the activities that their prisoners can undertake?
Arguably, the answer to these questions challenges the capacity of
intelligence agencies (or lack thereof), including military, police and
civil, both in Nepal and in India. The reality suggests that even if
Nepal’s regime failed to give security to its own citizens, India does
not seem to be successful in controlling pure criminal activities within
its own territory. Therefore, it must be realised that one’s own
success cannot be accounted for the failure of the other.
While
India is hailed by some as a sinning state, Nepal is being described as a
failed state in line with a number of the weak states labeled as failed
states. Many writers use the term 'failed state' without critically
analysing the vested interest of the powerful states interested in
controlling the life of other people and domination in others’
territory, in the name of such a failed state. Some of the so-called
failed states have already been the targets of intervention by powerful
states.
With or without the regular criteria of failed states, it
can be argued that if Nepal is a failed state, India would be a
dysfunctional state (or it is in a state of perversion of the initial
idea of the state). However, I insist to make a distinction between the
people and governments; a distinction between the interests of the
people, whom the government claims to represent and the policy of the
government, which contradicts these said interests, more often than not.
The fact that sub-state institutions including civil society
organizations, media and individuals of India have condemned the action
of their government holding the goods at Kolkata port, suggests that
there is no contradiction between the interests of the people in the two
countries. This also means that the failed political regimes of the two
countries are problems themselves, which effects all spheres of the
life of the people, but sub-state institutions can function and make
their point of view known to the outside world, nonetheless.
While
there are fixed criteria of a failed state— notable of them is the
fundamental failure of law and order— a definition of a dysfunctional
(perverted state) is perhaps needed in the lexicon of political science.
Under international law, government, people, territory and sovereign
control are integral, but separate, criteria of statehood. Therefore, a
failed government must not be known as a failed state. The notion must
not be confused in the situation where people rises up against their own
corrupt regime, or foreign domination, whereby the foreign powers wish
to control the local people to maintain their interest together with the
interest of their local client politicians or military junta.
The
Kantipur Publication newsprint held by Indian authorities at Kolkata
port is a jingoistic policy of the government of India acting in a
dysfunctional way rather than protecting the security of the state
according to international law. There are other examples of India, where
security concerns are misinterpreted; notable among them is the nuclear
technology deal with the United States, resulting into the rearming of
Pakistan by China with more nuclear technology. Currently, India is
seeking help from Canada and G20 to deal with this situation. However,
the Indian regime always enjoys playing big brother against Nepal—a play
of a dysfunctional state— distinct from people-to-people sound
relations between the two countries.
source:http://www.nepalnews.com/main/index.php/component/content/article/13-top-column/7101-is-india-a-dysfunctional-state-.html
.png)
