Forgot your password?
Oli-led Government-8
Modi’s Facing Saving Agenda
Siddhi B Ranjitkar
Apparently, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had given up his hard-line attitude toward Nepalese Prime Minister KP Oli and other Nepalese political leaders. Probably, Modi must have choked up himself holding thirty million Nepalese for the ransom of amending the constitution to suit his ego. Now, Modi had been trying to use the face saving tools such as Madheshi leaders and former Prime Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai. Oli had been quick to respond to the Indian gesture but it must be too early to celebrate for anything, as Modi had demonstrated that he was not predictable.
Obviously, Oli had received a good-news call from Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj after Nepalese Deputy Prime Minister holding the portfolio of foreign ministry Kamal Thapa had had talks with his New-Delhi counterpart Mrs. Swaraj in New Delhi on December 2, 2015 when Thapa was in India for his unofficial visit, according to the media reports. Again the media reported that Mrs. Swaraj had immediately after the talks with Thapa ended, she picked up the telephone and called Oli in Nepal making him to smile. Previously also, Oli had publicly said that India might loosen the undeclared blockade on Nepal soon but it did not turn out to be as anticipated. The sanction went on.
This time, it might be different from the previous positive anticipation, as the Madheshi leaders went to meet with the Indian ambassador calling off the meeting with the establishment scheduled for Friday, December 4, 2015. Some Nepalese newspapers reported that Modi had invited the Madheshi leaders to New Delhi for talks, former Prime Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai had left Kathmandu on December 4, 2015 for Mumbai to attend a conference, according to the news on the online Kathmandu post.
Probably, Modi must have thought that Nepalese leaders had been hard nuts to crack. Modi had been enduring the criticism of blocking Nepal not only from the Nepalese and the international community including the UN but also from among the Indian leaders and some of them from his own party. Indian leaders had been questioning Modi about the legitimacy of imposing blockade on Nepal. The Indian leaders of the Bihar State bordering Nepal had been for lifting the embargo on basic supplies to Nepal immediately after taking the oath of office of Chief Minister and ministers but they had not been able to do so, as the central government had the monopoly on dealing the foreign affairs. Anyway Modi had been realizing the illegitimacy of his actions on trying to bend Nepalese leaders.
Mr. Modi’s mind must have opened up and he must have questioned himself if one of the superpower leaders asked him to stop banning the cow-slaughtering and beef-eating he had imposed in some States in India causing great suffering to the millions of Indians losing jobs that had depended on the beef business, and many more suffering from the malnutrition caused by not having beef to eat, what he would do. Surely, Mr. Modi would not only ignore such meddling in his business but also even rebuffed them. Ultimately, Modi must have realized that the Nepalese leaders must have thought the same, what his business was to ask for an amendment to the Nepalese constitution. So, he waked up to the reality that it was the business of the Nepalese not his and his foreign personnel working in New Delhi and Kathmandu to do what needed to be done in Nepal.
Nepalese leaders should not be jubilant thinking Modi would finally opened up the border entry points and relieved the Nepalese from the shortage of the basic supplies soon. Indian leaders particularly Modi and his colleagues had the characteristics of a snake charmer. So, Modi might play a different tune to the India-visiting Madheshi leaders to move to the direction he wanted. Madheshi leaders had been dancing to the tune of Modi so far. They had voted for the losing Koirala for the office of prime minister in the parliamentary election. They had been holding the main entry point: Birgunj to stop the flow of any petroleum products to Nepal. Modi knew that without the fuel supply Nepalese industries would shut down causing the loss of millions of jobs not to mention the economic and business loss of billions of rupees worth every day. Only Modi could do such things.
The Nepalese media had not disclosed what former Prime Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai was taking to the Indian leaders in general and Modi in particular whether Modi and his colleagues would listen to Bhattarai or rather the Indian leaders would charm him to do something drastically that would change the politics of Nepal. Bhattarai alone had a little chance to do anything. The NC that had done a lot for India and the NC leaders could do something drastically but it had been sitting on fence after the debacle of Koirala to win the office of prime minister.
Recently, Dr Bhattarai had been demanding from the Nepalese leaders such as Prachanda and Sher Bahadur Deuba that had visited India a few weeks before the adoption of the new constitution in Nepal to tell the people what they had promised to the Indian leaders. Probably, Dr Bhattarai would find out what these Nepalese guys had said to the Indian leaders what they would do. Then, Bhattarai would sincerely tell the Nepalese public what the former two prime ministers had promised the Indian leaders. Indian leaders did not say anything about it because probably they did not want to violate the privacy of the talks they held with the two Nepalese former prime ministers. Their respective party also did not bother them to tell the subject matter to the public. Probably, they must have thought that it was not the business of the public.
After the return from India, these currently-India-visiting Madheshi guys whether they would continue or stop the so-called protests but they would prove themselves that they had been not only the Indian agents but also probably they had been in the payroll of the Indian intelligent agency called ‘RAW’. They could ask for the proofs but what they had been doing so far, and all their current activities had been more than sufficient for such proofs if they were really needed. Now the question was whether they had rights to act in Nepal. The answer was they had but not so openly as they had been doing today. They had been dining across the border to protest on the Nepalese side of the border. They rushed to the Indian embassy at the phone call of a clerk at the embassy. They anticipated everything the Indian ambassador would do for them. Probably, they believed that they could receive the portfolio of any ministry in Nepal they wanted at the behest of the Indian ambassador. They had been practically the pets of the Indian ambassador.
Now, Dr Bhattarai had been in the mission of creating a (unique) new force in Nepal. He did not say what the new force would look like, whether it was a political or any other kind of force. Dr Bhattarai took pride in tending his livestock in the past. He publicly told that he had reached the pinnacle of his career. He had no more ambition to climb higher rather he had been climbing down from the top as the mountaineers do from the top of Mount Everest. What he had implied all these things had been a significant question. Dr Bhattarai would be furious at somebody calling him a great Indian agent. However, that was the appropriate compliment to him. Whether he liked it or not up to him.
Now, something about Modi and his Hindu zealots, they had been doing whatever so far had been doing ignorantly. They did not know that the anger was the foe that had been hiding in their minds. They had been furious at anybody eating beef not to mention killing cows. They pretended not to know that more than five billion people in the world had been eating beef and they continued to eat. If Modi and his cadres believed that the cow was sacred let be so, and let they not eat beef and kill cow but preventing others to eat beef was not their business. That was their ignorance had been.
BBC NEWS on December 7, 2015 stated that the family of an Indian man lynched by a mob over rumors he consumed beef has denied reports that they no longer want a police investigation into the killing. Mohammad Akhlaq was beaten to death by a mob in Dadri in Uttar Pradesh state in late September. His son Mohammed Sartaj told BBC Hindi's Salman Ravi that he "is waiting for the police to charge the suspects". "We will go to the president of India if we have to. We will also demand an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation [India's top investigative body] if we feel that the Uttar Pradesh police is trying to save those involved in the case," Mr Sartaj, who works for the Indian Air Force, told BBC Hindi's Salman Ravi. He was responding to reports, which said Mr Akhlaq's family had said they were satisfied with the compensation they had received and did not want further investigations. The slaughter of cows is a sensitive issue in India, as Hindus comprising 80% of the country’s 1.2bn people consider the animal sacred. Uttar Pradesh is among a number of Indian states that have tightened laws banning cow slaughter and the sale and consumption of beef. The beef ban has also provoked outrage with many questioning how the government decides what is on their plate.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35025926
The Hindu zealots wanted to make Modi: the twenty-first-century dictator means “a person who tells people what to do in an autocratic way or who determines behavior in a particular sphere,” according to the English dictionary. The twentieth century had the dictators such as Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Stalin, and other small-country dictators such as Fidel Castro, Kim Il Jung that did not mind killing millions of people thought to be their opponents at the same time the world had the leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr that had changed the world without taking up arms. So, Modi had a choice which side he would like to take no matter what his cadres wanted him to be. Modi should in no way allow the ignorant cadres play his game.
Some religious zealots had committing heinous crimes elsewhere in the world because of ignorance of what they had been doing. Killing others would not take them to the martyrdom but to the hell if any. Recently, they had taken 130 innocent lives in Paris on November 13, 2015 for nothing. They did the same thing in California taking the lives of 14 innocent people in the San Bernardino mass shooting on December 2, 2015. They did not mind wasting their lives and wasting others’, too. For what, they probably did not know. Their religious gurus had made them insane to commit such unpardonable crimes for nothing.
Nepalese and all the Nepal lovers had been closely watching what the Madheshi leaders and Dr Bhattarai joining them had been doing at the behest of the Indian leaders. They were not fit to be called leaders if they were to do everything what the Indian leaders had been telling them to do. That was why the voters had rejected those Madheshi leaders. Now they needed one excuse or another to go to the people. That was why they had been causing so much unnecessary troubles to the thirty million Nepalese.
Obviously, Modi had been testing his ability to be a dictator in Nepal. He had invited the Nepalese Madheshi leaders to his New Delhi home to talk apparently about what to do next when the sanction on Nepal had not been really working. The just demand of the Madheshis needed to be met, no doubt about that otherwise Nepal would have a perpetual civil strife. What was the just demand? It must be the equal rights to all the Nepalese. Madheshis and ethnic people believed that the governance system made in the new constitution was not for giving opportunities to the ethnic and Madheshi people but the amendment to the constitution should be through the two-thirds majority not by force or threat or exhortation.
The Madheshi leaders had issued a statement to make public who were going to New Delhi and when. In a statement issued in Kathmandu on Saturday, December 5, 2015, the Madheshi leaders said that Upendra Yadav, Mahanta Thakur, Rajendra Mahato and Mahendra Rae Yadav were scheduled to visit India on Sunday, December 6, 2015 for holding talks with Indian political leaders on the burning Nepalese political issues, the news posted on myrepublica.com stated.
Everybody needed to wish for Modi not leading the poor Nepalese Madheshi to the political death trap. They had been already the half way to that destination because of the Modi’s intervention in the Nepalese political affairs. Modi wanted to be a political guru to the Nepalese political leaders. Most of them did not want to sit in the lessons of Modi. That was why Modi was so furious at the Nepalese leaders. However, those leaders taking the class of Modi had been the political characters Nepalese had disliked if not hated. Some of the Madheshi leaders also had been mad at not having the ministerial positions.
The Indian writer called P Chidambaram happened to sit next to the Nepalese Deputy Prime Minster Kamal Thapa while flying from Bengaluru to Delhi. Obviously, he had on-flight talks with Mr. Thapa, according to the news published in the ‘Indian Express’ of December 6, 2015. He gathered the following impression after talking with Mr. Thapa:
“1. There are issues concerning the Madhesis, but India should allow Nepal the space and time to resolve those issues through negotiations. While espousing the cause of the Madhesis, India should not pit the Madhesis against the rest of the population.
2. A new Constitution has been adopted by Nepal’s Parliament. If it requires amendments, they can be made in due course after negotiations (just as the Indian Constitution has been amended over a hundred times).
3. There are about 112 constituencies where the Madhesis are dominant or have a significant presence. Only 11 MPs among them are opposed to the new Constitution.
4. There is one province that is comprised exclusively of Madhesi-dominated districts. They want another province with exclusively Madhesi-dominated districts. This is a matter that can be resolved through negotiation. It cannot be a cause for a blockade.
5. India intervened very late — beyond even the proverbial eleventh hour — to stop the adoption of the Constitution. When the Constitution was adopted nevertheless, India felt slighted, unjustifiably.
6. The people of Nepal — or certainly an overwhelming majority — believe that India has imposed the blockade and the Indian government has instructed suppliers, including Indian Oil, to stop supplies. Whatever may be the reality, that is the perception, and with the passage of time that perception is getting stronger.
7. Nationalist feelings in Nepal are riding very high, and the overwhelming majority of the people has turned against India. Even MPs elected from the Madhesi-dominated constituencies blame India for the blockade. That is why, despite four months of immense hardship and suffering, there is no protest by the people against the Government of Nepal. They are determined to face the situation bravely.
8. With a seasoned politician as External Affairs Minister, a highly skilled and experienced diplomat as Foreign Secretary and an astute security expert as NSA, how did India commit grave tactical mistakes in dealing with Nepal?
9. India made the mistake of attempting belatedly to block the adoption of the Constitution. India made the mistake of opposing (silently) the election of Mr. K P Sharma Oli as Prime Minister. India made the mistake of propping up Mr. Sushil Koirala as a candidate for Prime Minister when Mr Oli was all set to offer Mr. Koirala the Presidency.
10. Nepal expects Indian political parties and Parliament to assert themselves and direct a course correction before matters reach a point beyond repair.” Published in the Indian Express of December 6, 2015.
He also wrote that the Nepali Congress party was the sister party of the Indian Congress party.
Other neighbors had been watching the activities of Modi and his Hindu Taliban skeptically.
Pakistan had already distanced from the Modi government. The Kashmir problem remained the hotly debated one both in India and Pakistan. Pakistan had been watching how the Hindu Taliban had been harassing the Muslim community in India. Some Bollywood Muslim celebrities had been vocal against how Hindu Taliban had been intolerance of the people of other faiths. One of the Bollywood Hindu celebrity called Anupam Kher had come out boldly to refute the Muslim Bollywood celebrities’ claim: the Hindu intolerance of other faiths. Instead of correcting the behavior some Hindu leaders had been asking them to go to Pakistan if the Bollywood celebrities were unhappy with India.
Bangladesh was another Muslim neighbor of India. Bangladeshi Muslims also had been watching the doings of Hindu fanatics in India. Certainly, they would not like their Muslim brethren in India suffering at the hands of the Hindu fanatics. They did not want to see Muslims were killed in India only for having beef in their fridges or refrigerators. Surely, Muslims would not kill Hindus going to their temples in Bangladesh even though Muslims had destroyed many Hindu temples in the past.
Sri Lanka was predominantly a Buddhist country but Sri Lankans would not tolerate the religious intolerance of the Hindu Taliban. Sri Lanka also had been watching what Modi had been doing and what he was for. Sri Lanka had a sizable number of Hindu Tamils. Even though Buddhists by nature had been tolerant, Sri Lanka had seen the clashes between the people of the two not so different faiths. Sri Lanka did not want to see Hind Taliban anywhere else.
Now Bhutan: the helpless country. Its monarch had formally presented his half the sovereignty to the Indian rulers only to save his crown. He drove more than one hundred thousands Bhutanese of Nepalese origins out of Bhutan confiscating everything they had in Bhutan because they wanted fundamental human rights. India let go those Bhutanese refuges to Nepal but closed the border when they wanted to go back home. Generous countries absorbed those refuges in their respective country. America alone took more than 80,000 Bhutanese refuges. Currently, the Bhutanese rulers had been wondering what they had done entrusting certain sovereignty to India, and driving their citizens out of the country, and finding themselves in the tight grip of the Indian rulers.
Probably, Modi might have thought to push the Nepalese government and political leaders to the position of the Bhutanese rulers but Modi must have found that Nepalese were not the Bhutanese and the Nepalese political leaders were not the Bhutanese monarchs that could sell their country’s sovereignty to India only to save his crown. So, Mr. Modi must understand that Nepalese were ready to tolerate the inconvenience of short supply of basic supplies rather than surrendering the sovereignty to India.
Now, Modi was using the Madheshi leaders to save his ugly face of intervening in the Nepalese business. Madheshi leaders had surrendered their morality and patriotism to Modi and had gone to India to save Modi from disgrace enduring their own faces smeared by unbelievable disgrace. Modi must have realized how generous Nepalese Madheshis had been. Indian External Affairs Minister Ma’am Sushma Swaraj had been the shield for Modi to work with Madheshi leaders in New Delhi to defend the intervention in the Nepalese internal affairs provoking harsh criticism worldwide from the Nepalese communities.
The thehindubusinessline.com wrote on its online news on December 6, 2015 that “Nepal is now increasingly relying on China for the supply of its essentials. It is also taking the help of Bangladesh. China is waiting to grab any opportunity that comes its way to disrupt our ties with Nepal ... Losses can run into billions,” a top official told BusinessLine on condition of anonymity. “Chinese influence is growing rapidly in Nepal. And we can check that only by having cordial trading ties,” said Ajay Sahai, DG and CEO, Federation of Indian Export Organizations. Bangladesh has already stated that China can use its airport in Syedpur and ports in Chittagong and Mongla as transit points to send supplies to Nepal. China has also indicated that it will become a long-term oil supplier to Nepal, which could eat into India’s market share.
Two-way trade between India and Nepal stood at $5.19 billion in 2014-15 with exports reaching $4.55 billion and imports at $640 million, according to data by Ministry of Commerce and Industry.
At the same time, India was determined to fix the Nepalese constitution through the dissident Madheshi leaders not the Madheshi people that had already taught a good lesson to the Madheshi leaders not voting for them but the Madheshi leaders refused to learn it.
Indian Ambassador to Nepal Mr. Ranjit Rae escorted the top Madheshi leaders such as Upendra Yadav, Mahanta Thakur, Rajendra Mahato and Mahendra Ray Yadav to the New Delhi office of Indian Minister for External Affairs Sushma Swaraj on Sunday evening, December 6, 2015. Ma’am Swaraj repeated the Indian’s support for the inclusive constitution in Nepal, the news posted on the thehimalayantimes.com stated.
http://thehimalayantimes.com/nepal/india-reaffirms-support-for-inclusive-nepal-to-madhesi-leaders/
Spokesperson for India’s Ministry of External Affairs Vikas Swarup tweeted after Madheshi leaders Upendra Yadav, Mahanta Thakur, Rajendra Mahato and Mahendra Ray Yadav met Swaraj over dinner in New Delhi on December 6, 2015, Sushma Swaraj met with Madheshi leaders in New Delhi, and reaffirmed support for an inclusive Nepal, the news posted on the thehimalayantimes.com stated.
Earlier, the Madheshi leaders had met with senior leader of Indian National Congress Karan Singh, Chairperson of Janata Dal (United) Sharad Yadav, General Secretary of Nationalist Congress Party DP Tripathi and General Secretary of Communist Party of India (Marxist) Sitaram Yechuri, the news on the thehimalayantimes.com stated.
According to a Facebook post, Madhesi leaders told JD (U) Chairperson Sharad Yadav that they expected both the ruling and opposition parties of India to have the same voice as far as Madheshi issues were concerned. The Sadbhawana Party also wrote on its Facebook wall that Yadav wondered why the Indian government was maintaining silence over such a discriminatory constitution. He also said the Indian government should strongly react against ‘discriminatory constitution of Nepal,’ the news on the thehimalayantimes.com stated.
NCP General Secretary DP Tripathi said that the Madheshi leaders mainly raised their concerns about delimitation of election constituencies, proportional inclusion, provincial boundaries and citizenship issues and he told them that all the issues should be resolved through negotiations. Tripathi said he told the Madheshi leaders that a negotiated settlement should be reached as soon as possible. “We want the current problems facing Nepal to end as soon as possible and there be unity among all the stakeholders of Nepal. We want Nepal to march ahead on the path of progress,” he said and added that negotiated settlement would ensure peace and stability in Nepal, the news on the thehimalayantimes.com stated.
http://thehimalayantimes.com/nepal/india-reiterates-support-for-inclusive-nepal/
In Kathmandu on December 6, 2015, Madheshi lawmakers obstructed the government’s plan to present formally for discussion the Constitution Amendment Bill that was registered on October 7 by the previous Nepali Congress-led government at the parliament.
As soon as Speaker Onsari Gharti Magar announced the beginning of the parliamentary proceedings and provided time to Deputy Prime Minister holding the portfolio of Foreign Ministry Kamal Thapa to speak, the Madheshi members of Parliament went to the front aisle of the House and chanted slogans demanding all their concerns be addressed. They also demanded to create an environment conducive to talks and said that the proposed amendment bill did not address 11-point demand they had put forth. Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Agni Prasad Kharel was to present formally the Constitution Amendment Bill at the Parliament following the agenda after NC, CPN-UML and UCPN-Maoist reached a three-point agreement on December 4, 2015, the news on the thehimalayantimes.com stated.
http://thehimalayantimes.com/nepal/tabling-of-constitution-amendment-bill-foiled/
Speaking at an interaction event held at the Rafat Media Club on December 6, 2015, Chairman of the Nepal Workers and Peasants’ Party (NWPP) Narayan Man Bijukchhe said that the visit of Madheshi leaders to New Delhi would not serve any interest of Nepal. He warned of the ongoing Madheshi protest would end soon in an agreement, which would be harmful to the nation in the future. He also accused Indian Minister for External Affairs Sushma Swaraj of violating diplomatic etiquette making comments on Nepal crisis. He had demanded actions against Indian Ambassador to Nepal Mr. Ranjit Rae at the Parliament stating it was the voice for interests of the nation, the news on the thehimalayantimes.com stated.
The news on the online Kathmandu post stated that India’s upper house called Rajya Sabha held a debate on “Nepal crisis and the Indo-Nepal relations” on December 7, 2015. Speaking at the Rajya Sabha, Congress –I senior leader Karan Singh remarked that it was a mistake and undiplomatic move on Indian government’s part to send special envoy to Nepal to stop the formal adoption of new constitution at the eleventh hour. He said the rights granted by the Nepal’s new constitution to agitating Madheshi group is less compared to what the interim constitution had granted. He further said the constitution has demarcated the federal states so as to weaken the demands for ‘one Madhesh one province.” He noted that the praise Indian PM Narendra Modi received during his visit to Nepal has gone down the drain. “Almost every newspaper published from Kathmandu are filled with anti-India news,” he said.
Indian Army has around 50,000 Gurkha soldiers in its regiment, which is another reason why Nepal-India relations should be viewed in a special way.
Janata Dal (United party) Chairman Sharad Yadav said that the current stand-off in Nepal between government and Madheshi is Nepal’s internal affairs and India should play a constructive role of mediator to seek a solution. He also said that it would be a grave mistake if any party or leader tries to take advantage of the complicated humanitarian crisis in Nepal.
Samajwadi Party lawmaker of Uttar Pradesh Mr. Ravi Prakash Verma urged the government to make its position clear on the straining age-old ties with Nepal and the initiatives taken to resolve the crisis. He added that the Indian government should respect the sovereignty of Nepal. “Does it mean that we have ulterior motive behind our apparent good gestures,” said Verma. He warned the government to take steps before the ongoing Madhesh movement goes into the hands of radicals.
Salim Ansari, BSP, Uttar Pradesh, “Nepal is our brother and we should not lose our brother.” Indian government should reach out to both sides of conflict in Nepal, the ruling parting and agitating Madheshi parties, and play the role of mediator to end the crisis. “This is the first time in 65 years after independence that our relation with Nepal is facing serious risks,” he added.
Jantadal United lawmaker Pawan Kumar Verma said that India should act as a good mediator and not as a big brother. Thus the news on the online Kathmandu post ended.
The news on online Kathmandu post has it that speaking at the parliament on December 7, 2015, Deputy Prime Minister holding the portfolio of the foreign ministry Mr. Kamal Thapa urged his counterpart in India Ma’am Sushma Swaraj to resolve the bilateral issue following the recent discussion the two foreign ministers held in New Delhi. DPM Thapa said that the government has been putting utmost effort to address the demands of agitating Madhesh-centric parties through talks and negotiations.
DPM Thapa also said that India’s External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj’s statement at the India’s Upper House Rajya Sabha on December 3 concerning the Nepal-India relations and Nepal’s current situation had drawn the attention of the government. DPM Thapa sought to correct the perceived inaccuracies in the Swaraj’s statement.
“I have been hopeful since my India visit from Nov 30 to Dec 2 where I met Indian Prime Minister, External Affairs Minister, and national security advisor, among other high-profile personnel. My India visits have been helpful on resolving souring misunderstanding between Nepal and India and I am hopeful that there will be early improvement to the current situation,” DPM Thapa said.
Recalling Indian PM Narendra Modi’s two visits to Nepal last year and his address to the Nepalese Parliament, DPM Thapa appreciated the India’s immediate respond to the crisis triggered by the earthquake in April.
He said that Nepal had anticipated receiving warm welcome from its friendliest neighbor also the world’s biggest democracy on adopting the new constitution but the India’s statement ‘merely noting’ the constitution and subsequent obstruction of transit has shocked the Nepalese and the transit obstruction continued, Thapa said.
Thapa also said that friendly nations including China, Japan and UN Secretary General had welcomed the constitution, recently a majority of 79 member states taking part in the Universal Periodic Review session on Human Rights held in Geneva had praised Nepal for adopting the constitution. The news on the online Kathmandu post ended.
At the dinner meeting held at the Hyderabad House on Sunday, December 6, 2015, Indian Minister for External Affairs Sushma Swaraj told the visiting Madheshi leaders that India was always in favor of an inclusive Nepal, according to the news on online Kathmandu post. “We want to express our concerns over the ongoing Madhesh agitation in the bordering areas and inclusive democracy [in Nepal],” a diplomatic source quoted Swaraj. She told the Madheshi leaders that India wanted to listen to their concerns collectively on resolving the political standoff in Nepal.
Madheshi leaders Mahanta Thakur, Upendra Yadav, Rajendra Mahato and Mahendra Ray Yadav arrived in New Delhi on Sunday morning. During the meeting, the leaders expressed their resentment that they were often branded “pro-India” in Nepal for speaking for the rights of the Madheshi people.
Indian Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar, Indian Ambassador to Nepal Ranjit Rae, spokesperson for the Indian Ministry of External Affairs Vikas Swarup and joint secretary and Nepal desk chief Abhay Thakur attended the dinner meeting lasting about two hours.
The Madheshi leaders told Indian Nationalist Congress Party leader DP Tripathi earlier that the ruling and major parties in Nepal had tried to weaken the Madhesh agitation “linking the country’s internal problems with New Delhi,” according to Tripathi. Tripathi said, “Regarding constitution amendment, we talked about two points such as state delineation and the issue of citizenship.” He said that he had advised the visiting leaders to move forward on a roadmap of settling the political issues through dialogues and consensus.
The diplomatic source said that the Delhi’s effort on resolving the political issues in Nepal was to prepare a roadmap with a specific action plan on the delineation of Jhapa, Morang, Sunsari, Kailali and Kanchanpur districts for federal restructuring, and on reaching an agreement on resolving all the disputes through a political committee to be set up with constitutional recognition within three months.
Speaking at the Rajya Shabha, Mani Shanker Aiyar said that out of the four Madheshi leaders currently visiting New Delhi three had lost the elections, and one had filed his candidature in two constituencies, he lost in one and won in another. Mr. Aiyar also told the Rajya Shabha that out of 116 Madheshi lawmakers 105 had voted for the new constitution, and only 11 had voted against. He questioned why India had been supporting the defeated Madheshi minority in Nepal. Mani Shankar Aiyar asked, "Can you imagine a Nepali fetching up in New Delhi on 27 November 1949, the day after our constituent Assembly had adopted our constitution, to order us to not proclaim the constitution on 26 January 1950 because it would need 122 amendments over the next 65 years?" (Source: The video of his speech posted on facebook on December 7, 2015)
Visiting New Delhi for saving the face of already defaced Modi, Madheshi leaders had exposed their position to the extent possible weakening their cause to the unimaginable level. Now, the whole world knew that out of the four Madheshi leaders visiting India, three were the unsuccessful in the elections, and out of the 116 Madheshi lawmakers 105 had voted for the constitution. What else do the Madheshi leaders needed, now?
December 8, 2015
Annex
NDTV.com
A Modi-Made Disaster Hits Nepal Hard
Mani Shanker Aiyer
“13 border guards detained". By Pakistan? China? Hell, no. By Nepal! That is the condition to which we have been reduced by Modi's neighborhood policy.
One had fondly hoped that once the Bihar elections were over, and Modi's bid for the north Bihar vote via gross interference in Nepal's internal affairs had ended, there would be some respite for the beleaguered Nepalese. But, no, we are into the third month of India's siege of our landlocked neighbour and there is no sign of an end to the crisis. It seems there is something insatiable about Modi's thirst for vengeance on Nepal for being denied a Hindu Rashtra, and undermining his bid to speak at a rally in Janakpur a year ago with the intention of distributing 10,000 bicycles to Madhesi girls to impress their relatives across the border who were due to vote in the 2015 Bihar election. We are thus at the very nadir of our key strategic relationship with the single most important bordering country we have.
The Chinese have rushed to Nepal's succour and are laughing all their way across the Himalayas to Kathmandu - a mind-boggling diplomatic blunder. Suhasini Haider asks in The Hindu "It is necessary to ask one basic question: Why? Why has its (India's) diplomacy and power failed so miserably?" The Nepali Times of 5 December underlines that "Beijing obviously enjoys seeing India squirm in a quagmire of its own making." No anti-Indian Nepali (and their ranks have swelled to unprecedented levels in recent weeks) is going to forget or forgive the national humiliation heaped upon them by a bullying, domineering India. How does one explain to them that it is not India but Modi who is responsible for this tragedy?
UNICEF have estimated that three million Nepali children under the age of five are at risk of death or disease this winter if the Indian blockade continues. Anthony Lake, UNICEF's Executive Director said in a statement issued 30 November after visiting Nepal: "The risks of hypothermia and malnutrition, and the shortfall of life-saving medicines and vaccines, could be a potentially deadly combination for children this winter". What Bush did to Iraq pales in comparison to what India is doing to Nepal. This is not diplomatic retaliation; it amounts to abetment to genocide. And, worse, we are doing this just as Nepal is beginning to recover from its terrible earthquake. That was a natural disaster. This is entirely man-made. Or, at any rate, Modi-made.
The disaster being visited upon Nepal is of such a magnitude that the Nepalese have swallowed their pride and sent their deputy Prime Minister to New Delhi last week to plead the Nepali cause. Our government is tight-lipped about the outcome, as the External Affairs Minister's statement in the Rajya Sabha on 4 December gave nothing away. But from speculation in the press, it appears Nepal has informed our authorities that it would work for a couple of constitutional amendments that would give a higher share of proportionate representation in the Nepalese parliament than is stipulated at the moment and adjust provincial boundaries to make them more ethnically cohesive. That is no achievement. The Nepal leaders, indeed the Nepal cabinet, had already been seized of this requirement and even drafted the amendments to concede additional space to the Terai voter. And this notwithstanding the fact that out of some 116 elected representatives of the Terai in Nepal's constituent assembly, only eleven had voted against the constitution. The other 105 had placed their trust in their upcountry Nepalese brethren to eventually give them a fair deal and do the truly patriotic thing of endowing Nepal with a constitution for which a consensus had been sought for over seven years. The moment was not to be lost.
Can you imagine a Nepali fetching up in New Delhi on 27 November 1949, the day after our constituent Assembly had adopted our constitution, to order us to not proclaim the constitution on 26 January 1950 because it would need 122 amendments over the next 65 years? Yet, that is exactly what happened when Modi rushed his Special Envoy to Kathmandu to order Nepal to desist. It was the equivalent of the 19th century imperial practice of sending gunboats up the Yangtze every time the Western colonialists in China were thwarted. And the figure of 122 that I have given is not fanciful. It is the number of the GST constitutional amendments that the Government is threatening to move in the Rajya Sabha in the coming week.
If our constitution can be amended over a hundred times without taking anything away from the essence of the constitution - its "basic structure" - consider our gall in telling the Nepal constituent assembly that we do not trust them to keep their word (although over 100 elected Terai MPs do) and so, if they do not bend their knees to our insolent might, we will starve Nepal into submission by denying them food, medicine, cooking gas and other petroleum products? Yet, that is the magnitude of the suffering we have inflicted on lakhs of Nepalese who only wish to be left alone. Wickedest irony of all: this is how our country, pledged to the Five Principles of Panchsheel, disports itself under an anti-Nehruvian authoritarian. Shame on us!
Yubraj Ghimre, the Indian Express' dispassionate reporter on India-Nepal relations, has this to say: "The current standoff is only a manifestation of India not knowing when and where to stop, even when there were clear signs of India's role being counter-productive." On 6 December, he added in the same paper, "All of this appears to have generated a strong anti-India sentient among the younger generation, with the southern neighbour being painted as a villain".
Krishna Sinjali writes in The Nepali Times of "the bruised egos in the New Delhi establishment trying to teach Nepali politicians a lesson for not listening to them.'' Two days later, the same paper talked of "all the goodwill" generated by Modi's visit to Nepal having been "squandered by decision-makers in New Delhi who have callously turned an entire generation of Nepalis against India.'' Another Editor-in-Chief, Subhash Ghimire says, "The people see this as a big country in the south trying to bully us. The general population thinks we should stand up to India. People are together on this." Modi has succeeded in alienating an entire nation.
Our only hope is that most Nepalese understand that this is Modi's doing, not India's. As the voice of the Opposition rings out in parliament, let us hope the reverberations will reach the Valley of Kathmandu to show them that there is a huge section of India's public opinion that empathizes with their woes and stands ready to rectify matters when power is restored to Nepal's friends in India.
(Mani Shankar Aiyar is a Congress MP in the Rajya Sabha.)
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same. First Published: December 07, 2015 18:22 IST
