Recently, the Maoists have escalated their now-on-then-off anti-India protests. This time they have taken their marches from the streets to locations in Nepal-India borders, where there are territorial disputes or encroachments or civil constructions (from the Indian side) that adversely affect Nepal’s interests.
UCPN (Maoist) know that antagonizing India will cost them dearly. That is why they have always pleased India, whether in government or as rebels. Why, therefore, are they inviting the wrath now? Well, there is not one definitive answer to this. There are multiples of possible reasons and mixes of plausible theories, all valid in parts. One reason is that they needed to change the slogan of their ever stretching protests as ‘civilian supremacy’, their catchword for the last six months, couldn’t make headway. And what could be a catchier slogan than ‘national independence’ directed against the overbearing southern neighbor to replace/supersede ‘civilian supremacy’?
Maoists are extremely unhappy with the Indians, particularly since they chose to resign from power. They blame the pressure from India as a reason to resign some nine months before. The Indian establishment which once supported and lobbied for Maoists’ accession to power later became furious with the Maoists, alleging that the latter tried to play China against India. So, one theory is that the Maoists’ agitation is a bargaining tool to acquire Indian support to return to power. However, also because of their own misadventures in military affairs and over-assertiveness over other political forces Maoists were isolated in the domestic front as well.
The recent anti-India protests also serves as a tool to keep their hard-line cadres busy in a job of their delight; cadres, who otherwise may create numerous problems. It also serves the purpose of defaming, weakening and baiting of leader like Babu Ram Bhattarai, accused to be close to Indians by his opponent Mohan Baidya and contender Pushpa Kamal Dahal within the party.
Maoists are extremely unhappy with the Indians, particularly since they chose to resign from power. They blame the pressure from India as a reason to resign some nine months before.
Another theory is that the Maoists are trying to woo the general public including all anti-Indian elements within Nepal, on the assumptions that Nepali people are historically anti-Indian. However, this notion is outdated now. It is not the people of Nepal but the leaders that suffer from the inferiority complex arising from living/dealing with a bigger and powerful neighbor.
Often the proponents of ‘Nepalis are pathologically anti-Indian’ theory cite certain examples to establish their claim; the Hritik Roshan incident being the top among them. However, the violent rampage back in 2001 that went on uncontrolled for nearly one whole week in the streets of Kathmandu in retaliation to the Indian film star’s insulting remarks against Nepali people (later found to be false), was a carefully orchestrated act of sabotage of the then underground Maoists.It was neither a reflection of popular will nor a movement of spontaneity. Similarly, the public reacted coolly when the then Panchayati rulers tried to flare up anti-India sentiments following the trade and transit embargo by India on two occasions (1972 and 1989).
Ever since, much water has flown in Koshi; the level of political consciousness of Nepali people during the last two decades has risen to new heights. Besides, feeling towards India is not homogeneous in all parts of the country (Kathmandu Valley, Tarai, Hills and Himalayan belt) and among all the communities (Madhesis, Khas, Janajatis, ex-Indian army et al). Therefore, playing anti-India in the cover of nationalism to serve one’s political interests will hardly draw a broad-based support, a fact evident from the poor turnout of the masses in Maoists’ anti-Indian marches.
Also, people don’t have much faith in Maoists’ anti-Indian exploits. Because of the Maoists’ track record they know that their recent policy shifts are cyclical and seasonal and that they will disappear the day Maoists assume power. That 8 out of 10 years the Maoists launched their bloody insurgency, India provided them safe haven is secret to nobody now.
A timeless maxim of international diplomacy says, defending national interests while dealing with foreign powers demands national consensus, not partisanship. Had the Maoists not been isolated in the domestic front, they wouldn’t have to hear the warning tone of the Indian foreign minister for their anti-Indian agitations during the latter’s Kathmandu visit the other day.
jeevan1952@hotmail.com
Related story
Mainstream Nationalism vs. Regional Nationalism
