प्रधानमन्त्रीको भारत भ्रमणकिन छाडा छाड्ने खुला सीमालाई ?
बुद्धिनारायण श्रेष्ठ http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnepalinews.php?&nid=160323
अवाञ्छित तत्त्वले भारतमा आतंककारी गतिविधि मच्चाउँछन्, खुला सीमा विना रोकटोक पार गरी नेपालको विभिन्न ठाउँमा लुकिछिपी बस्छन् । यस्तै भारतको डाँका डफ्फा संसाँझै मोरङको बरडङ्गा गाविसमा खुलेआम पस्छन् । धनमाल लुट्छन्, बलात्कार गर्छन्, मान्छे मार्छन् र उज्यालो नहुँदै सीमा नाघेर भारततर्फ आनन्दसँग दिउसै सुत्छन् । महिनाको करिब पाँच हजार नेपाली चेलीबेटीलाई खुला सीमापार गराएर भारतका विभिन्न सहरका वेश्याकोठीमा बेचिन्छन् । कति मध्यपूर्वका देशमा घरेलु कामदारमा पुर्याइन्छन् । जसमध्ये कतिले जिउँदै कठोर यातना भोग्नुपरेको छ, कति महिलाको सास नभएको लासमात्र नेपाल आइपुग्छ । यस्तै खुला सीमाबाट लागूपदार्थ ओसार-पसार, मालसामान तस्करी, व्यक्ति अपहरण, हत्या, अपराध, राजनीतिक विकृतिका आफ्नै रामकहानी छन् । एक देशमा यस्ता घटना घटाउँछन्, अर्को देशमा छिर्नेबित्तिकै गुपचुप भएर बस्न सक्छन् । यहाँ प्रश्न उठ्छ, यस्ता कुख्यात हत्यारा र आतंककारीलाई पत्ता लगाई पक्राउ गर्न नसक्नुमा कसको दोष छ- भारतको या नेपालको ? यसको सोझो जवाफ हुनसक्छ- यसमा दुवै देशको दोष छैन । दोषी खुला सीमा व्यवस्था हो ।
यस्ता घटनाक्रमबाट नेपाल र भारत दुवै देशले मनन गर्नुपर्यो, अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय खुला सीमालाई अब पनि खुलै राख्ने हो कि यसलाई नियमन, नियमित तथा व्यवस्थित गर्नुपर्ने
हो ? अर्कोतर्फ नेपाल र भारतको सीमा खुला गरिनेछ भनी कुनै सन्धि, सम्झौता, समझदारीपत्र तथा लिखत छ-छैन ? यस सम्बन्धमा भारतीय राजदूतावास, काठमाडौंका काउन्सिलर सञ्जय बर्माले भनेका थिए- '१९५० को नेपाल-भारत सन्धिमा दुई देशबीचको खुला सिमानाबारे कुनै पनि दफामा उल्लेख छैन । खुला सिमाना प्राचीनकालदेखि आजसम्म दुवै देशबीच रहँदै आएको घनिष्ट मित्रतापूर्ण सम्बन्धको धरोहर हो ।' -स्पेसटाइम दैनिक, ०६१ असार १८) ।
दुई देशबीचको अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय सीमा नियमन भए आतंककारी तथा अपराधी विना सोधपुछ नेपाल छिर्न सक्थे या सक्ने थिएनन् ? जिज्ञासा उठ्छ । नियमन सीमा व्यवस्था अवलम्बन गरिएको भए सीमा अध्यागमन चौकीमा उनीहरूको परिचयपत्र हेरिन्थ्यो । नेपालतर्फ गएर कहाँ, कति दिन बस्ने र के कामका लागि जानलागेको भन्ने अभिलेख राखिन्थ्यो । अनि उनीहरूमध्ये कोही अपराधी भएको तथ्य प्रकाशमा आएपछि यात्रु अभिलेखबाट उनीहरूले दिएको ठेगाना तथा अन्य वैकल्पिक स्थानमा खोजतलास गर्न सकिने थियो । केही ढिलै भए पनि आतंककारीलाई पक्रन सकिने थियो होला । यसबाट दुवैतर्फ शान्ति अमनचैन कायम गर्न मद्दत पुग्ने थियो ।
हाम्रा नयाँ र ताजा प्रधानमन्त्री पुष्पकमल दाहाल 'प्रचण्ड'ले भदौ २९ गतेदेखि भारतको तीन दिवसीय औपचारिक राजनीतिक भ्रमण गर्दै हुनुहुन्छ । उहाँको भ्रमणको पूर्वसन्ध्यामा विभिन्न विधाका व्यक्तिले आ-आफ्ना विषयमा सुझाव व्यक्त गरिएको छापामा आइरहेछ । माओवादी केन्द्रीय सचिवालयको भदौ २० गतेको बैठकमा सदस्यहरूले पनि प्रधानमन्त्रीलाई विभिन्न सुझाव दिए । यस्ता सुझावमध्ये नेपाल-भारत खुला सिमाना व्यवस्थित र नियन्त्रण गरिनुपर्ने, कालापानी-सुस्ता लगायत नेपाली भू-भागमा भारतीय पक्षले गरेको सीमा अतिक्रमण, कोशी बाँधबाट उत्पन्न समस्या, सन् १९५० को नेपाल-भारत शान्ति तथा मैत्री सन्धि खारेज गरेर नेपालको हितमा नयाँ सन्धि गरिनुपर्ने, १९६५ को असमान सन्धिबारे तथा अन्य विषयमा समेत केन्द्रीय सदस्यले प्रधानमन्त्रीको ध्यानाकर्षण गराएका थिए ।
एमालेका पूर्वमहासचिव तथा पार्टी विदेश विभाग प्रमुख माधवकुमार नेपालले "प्रधानमन्त्रीले कालापानी सिमाना लगायतका विषयमा राष्ट्रिय हित सुनिश्चित गर्न सक्नुपर्छ, १९५० को सन्धिलाई समयअनुकूल परिमार्जन गरी पुनरावलोकन गर्न सक्नुपर्छ" भन्ने सुझाव दिनुभएको प्रकाशमा आएको छ ।
नेपालको राष्ट्रिय स्वाधीनता, सार्वभौमसत्ता र भौगोलिक अखण्डता रक्षाका लागि दिइएका यस्ता सकारात्मक सुझावको पोको हाम्रा प्रधानमन्त्रीले भारतीय समकक्षीसमक्ष खोल्नुपर्छ । कोशीको तटबन्ध फुटी उब्जिएको समस्या नेपालको मात्रै होइन, भारतको पनि हो । त्यसमा पनि भारतका लागि ठूलो पैमानाको समस्या हो भन्ने तथ्य प्रस्तुत गर्नुपर्छ । नेपाली भूमिमा बाँधिएको कोशी बाँधको प्रशासन, व्यवस्थापन, हेरचाह, मर्मत-सम्भार आदि काम नेपालको अधिकारभित्र पार्नेगरी कोशी सम्झौता गरिएको भए कोशी तटबन्ध फुट्नबाट जोगाउन सकिने थियो । पचासौं लाख भारतीय नागरिकलाई डुबान र बाढी प्रकोपबाट बचाउन सकिने थियो भन्ने तथ्यपूर्ण तर्क खुलेर भारतसमक्ष राख्ने हिम्मत गर्नुपर्छ ।
यस्तैगरी खुला सीमाका कारण दुवै देशमा हत्या, हिंसा, आतंककारी र आपराधिक क्रियाकलाप बढ्दै गएकाले अब सीमालाई छाडा नछाडौं, यसलाई नियमन गरौं भन्ने तथ्यपूर्ण प्रस्ताव प्रस्तुत गर्नुपर्छ । यसलाई पुष्टि गर्न त्रिभुवन अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय विमानस्थलबाट ०५६ पुस ९ गते नयाँदिल्लीका लागि उडेको इन्डियन एयरलाइन्सको उडान नंं आईसी ८१४ को विमान अपहरण गरी अफ्गानिस्तानको कन्दहारमा लगेपछिको सहकार्यलाई दृष्टान्तको रूपमा लिन सकिन्छ । स्मरणीय छ, यस घटनापछि दुवै देशको सहकार्यमा हवाईयात्रुले परिचयपत्र प्रस्तुत गर्नुपर्ने नयाँ व्यवस्था अवलम्बन गरिएको थियो । यसैलाई जोडेर आफ्ना भारतीय समकक्षीसँग जिज्ञासा राख्न सक्नुहुन्छ- हवाईमार्गमा नियमन सीमा व्यवस्था अपनाइसकिएको छ भने स्थलमार्गलाई अब किन छाडा छाड्ने ?
यसैगरी नेपालको भूमि मिचिएको तथा कालापानी- लिम्पियाधुरा क्षेत्र अतिक्रमण भएको सम्बन्धमा कुरा कोटयाउँदा तत्कालीन भारतीय प्रधानमन्त्री आईके गुजरालले नेपाल भ्रमण अवसरमा ०५३ फागुन १२ गते काठमाडौंमा भन्नुभएको वाक्य हाम्रा प्रधानमन्त्रीले उद्धृत गर्नुपर्छ । "कालापानीका सम्बन्धमा दुवै देशका प्राविधिकहरूद्वारा सिमांकन कार्य भइरहेको छ । यदि सिमांकन प्रतिवेदनले यो नेपाली भूमि हो भन्ने ठहर्याएमा हामी तुरुन्त त्यहाँबाट हट्ने छौं" भन्नुभएको थियो, गुजरालले । यदि कालापानी- लिम्पियाधुराको भूमि भारतकै हो भन्ने प्रमाण आधार भए भारतीय प्रधानमन्त्रीले त्यो क्षेत्र भारतकै हो भनी ठोकुवा गर्नुहुन्थ्यो होला । तर किटानी दाबा गर्न सक्नुभएन । यसैलाई नेपालले टेकी छलफल अघि बढाउन सकिन्छ । यस्तै नेपालका प्रधानमन्त्रीको भारत भ्रमण अवसरमा प्रकाशित २३ मार्च २००२ को संयुक्त प्रेस विज्ञप्तिको दफा २७ मा कालापानी तथा अन्य सीमाक्षेत्रको सिमांकन सम्बन्धमा नेपाल-भारत संयुक्त प्राविधिक सीमा समितिले राम्रोसँग जाँचुबुझ गर्ने र दुवैतर्फलाई आपसी मान्य बुँदा
ननिस्केमा निर्णयार्थ दुवै सरकारसमक्ष पेश गर्नु भन्ने दुवै प्रधानमन्त्रीको संयुक्त भनाइलाई विगत प्रसंगका रूपमा हाल प्रस्तुत गर्नुपर्छ ।
यसैगरी दफा २३ मा रूपन्देही र बाँकेका रसियावाल- खुर्दलोटन र लक्ष्मणपुर बाँधका कारण सीमाका दुवैतर्फका वासिन्दा र उनीहरूको जीविकोपार्जनका लागि नकारात्मक असर नपर्ने कुरामा आवश्यक सावधानी अपनाइनेछ भनी उल्लेख भएको कुराको प्रसंग राख्दै भारतले सीमावर्ती क्षेत्रमा विभिन्न बाँध र तटबन्ध अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय अभिसन्धिअनुसार नबनाउन अनुरोध गर्नु प्रासंगिक हुन्छ ।
अर्कोतर्फ ३१ जुलाई १९५० को सन्धि तथा त्यसैदिन गरिएका पत्राचार र यसैसँग सम्बन्धित ३० जनवरी १९६५ को गोप्य सम्झौताका कतिपय धारा भारतले पालना नगरेको र यसको मर्यादा राखेको पाइँदैन । नेपालले पनि कतिपय धारा लागू नगरी बेवास्ता गरेकाले सन्धिका अधिकांश धारा छियाछिया भई उपयोगहीन भइसकेकाले मौजुदा सन्धि रद्द गर्नुपर्ने भन्ने तर्कपूर्ण अभिव्यक्ति नेपालले सप्रमाण राख्नुपर्छ ।
यस्तैगरी जलस्रोत, पारवहन, व्यापार, भारत र चीनका लागि नेपाल ट्रान्जिट मुलुक आदिबारे हाम्रा प्रधानमन्त्रीले तथ्य-तथ्याङ्क, तिथिमिति, घटनाक्रम, लाभ-हानिका आधारमा तथ्यपूर्ण पुष्टयाइँसाथ राख्न सक्नुपर्छ । तथ्य र वैज्ञानिक तर्कमा विश्वको ठूलो प्रजातन्त्रिक मुलुक भारत अडेको छ । त्यसकारण नेपालको प्रस्ताव नमान्ने पक्षमा भारत पुग्छ भन्न सकिन्न । दृढतासाथ नेपाल प्रस्तुत हुनमात्र सक्नुपर्छ । किनकि भारत नेपालको घनिष्ट मित्र देश हो । नेपाललाई सदा सहयोग गर्न भारत तत्पर रहेको छ भन्ने उद्गार भारतको रहेको छ । सक्दो सहयोग पुर्याई आएको पनि छ ।
यसै प्रसङ्गमा भारतका प्रधानमन्त्री मनमोहन सिंहले पुष्पकमल दाहाल प्रचण्ड प्रधानमन्त्री चुनिनेबित्तिकै बधाई सन्देश पठाउनुभएको थियो । सन्देशमा भनिएको छ- 'निकट भविष्यमा म तपाईंलाई भेट्न व्यग्र छु । तपाईंलाई पाहुनाको रूपमा भारतमा स्वागत गर्न प्रतीक्षारत छु । जनस्तरमा रहेको सम्बन्धलाई अझ कसिलो बनाउन म तपाईंसँग सहकार्य गर्न प्रतीक्षा गर्दछु ।'
यसले के जनाउँछ भने भारत नेपालसँग सबै कामका लागि सहकार्य गर्न इच्छुक रहेको छ । दुवै देशलाई हित हुने आयोजना कार्यान्वयन गर्न-गराउन भारत तत्पर रहेको छ । भारतीय समकक्षीको यस्तो भनाइमा उभिएर नेपालले सारपूर्ण प्रस्ताव राखेमा भारतले नकारात्मक धारणा राख्दैन भन्ने जान्न सकिन्छ । किनकि आजको विश्वमा नेपाल, भारतसँग मात्रै सिमाना गाँसिएको छैन, तर चीनसँग पनि यसको उत्तरी सीमारेखा टाँसिएको छ भन्ने कुरा भारतले मात्रै होइन, अमेरिका, बेलायत र युरोपेली मुलुकले समेत राम्ररी बुझेका छन् । ती देशले नेपालको उत्तरी छिमेकीले शानदार ओलम्पिक खेल महोत्सव पूर्ण सफलतासाथ सम्पन्नमात्रै गरेन, सर्वाधिक ५१ स्वर्ण पदकसमेत जित्न सफल भयो भन्ने तथ्य तथ्यांक मनन गरेका छन् । यस्तै चीनले मालसामानको विश्व बजार कब्जा गरेको मात्र नभई ओलम्पिक समारोहमा वषर्ा गर्नलागेको प्राकृतिक कुहिरोलाई आकाशमा सयौं मौसमी रकेट छाडेर वषर्ा हुनबाट पूर्णरूपमा रोक्यो । यस्तै समापन समारोह सकिनेबित्तिकै सयौं रकेट प्रक्षेपण गरेर कृत्रिम बादल जम्मा गरी कता-कताबाट तुरुन्त त्यस स्थानमा वषर्ा गरायो । यसबाट विश्वले बुझयो, चीन विज्ञान प्रविधिमा पनि विश्वलाई माथ गर्ने अवस्थामा पुग्दैछ । यसैले चीनसँग सीमा जोडिएको नेपाललाई विश्वका विभिन्न देशले नियालिरहेका छन् । नेपालको महत्त्व बढेको छ । यिनै परिप्रेक्ष्यमा हाम्रा नयाँ प्रधानमन्त्रीको पहिलो राजनीतिक भारत भ्रमण अवसरमा सहयोगको कुरा बिछयाई भारत सरकारको मन जित्नु नै अहिलेको मुख्य उपलब्धि हुनेछ ।
(-लेखक नापी विभागका पूर्वमहानिर्देशक हुन् ।)
Friday, September 12, 2008
बदलिँदो विश्व सन्तुलनबीच नेपाल
बदलिँदो विश्व सन्तुलनबीच नेपालभारत र अमेरिका एकातिर उभिएका छन् भने चीन र पाकिस्तान अर्कोतिर - RAMESH NATH PANDE
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnepalinews.php?&nid=160320विश्व रंगमञ्चमा नयाँ घटनाहरू तीव्र गतिमा भइरहेका छन् । विश्वको शक्ति सन्तुलनमा गम्भीर झड्का दिने यी घटनाले दुई दशकदेखि विद्यमान भूमण्डलीय खाका, यसका प्रमुख पात्रहरू र तिनको हैसियतसँगै शक्ति राष्ट्रहरूको सामरिक चिन्तन, विशेष मित्र र सामरिक हिस्सेदारीमा हेरफेर गर्न थालेको छ । चार सातापहिले जर्जियामा रुसको नयाँ चाहना र आपmनो हैसियतमाथिको विश्वास देखिएको थियो । यसले पूर्ण आकार लिने र त्यसलाई नियन्त्रण गर्ने द्वन्द्वले सुरु गरेको परिवर्तनको लहरले अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय सम्बन्धका सबै फाँटहरूलाई प्रभावित पारेको छ ।अब परिवर्तनको अर्को चरण एसियामा हुन्ो संकेत छ । चीन र भारतबीच एसियाको नेतृत्वका लागि संघर्ष सुरु हुन थालेको छ । यसले एसियामा स्थायित्व ल्याउँछ कि ठूला शक्तिहरूबीचको द्वन्द्वको अखडा बनाउँछ, विश्व व्यवस्थालाई कस्तो संरचना र दिशातिर अग्रसर तुल्याउँछ भन्नेमा प्रस्ट छैन । तर यसमा कुन्ौ प्रभाव पार्न नसके पनि प्रभाव भोग्न भने बाध्य हुन्ौपर्ने नेपालजस्ता साना राष्ट्रहरूका लागि चिन्ताको भारी निरन्तर गह्रुँगो भएको छ । यो भारले आपmनो अस्तित्वलाई नै थिच्न नपाओस् र निर्माण हुन्ा थालेको भविष्यमा पनि आपmना आधारभूत स्वार्थहरू सुरक्षित राख्न सकियोस् भनेर अहिलेदेखि नेपाल सचेत हुन्ाुपर्छ । यसका लागि आवश्यक क्षमता बनाउन राष्ट्रिय शक्तिहरूको मन मिल्नै पर्छ ।हाम्रा छरछिमेकमा र विश्वशक्तिहरूको सम्बन्धको आधारभूत संरचनामा बहन थालेको मूलभूत परिवर्तनको हावाले यो एक साताभित्र थुप्रै झड्का दिएको छ । ४५ सदस्यीय परमाणु आपूर्ति समूह -एनएसजी) मा प्रवेश पाएपछि ३० वर्षदेखि भोगिरहेको आणविक नाकाबन्दीबाट भारतले मुक्ति पाएको छ । विश्व राजनीतिको प्रासंगिक शक्ति बन्ने भारतको धेरै पुरानो महत्त्वाकांक्षा पूरा हुने बाटो खुलेको छ । यसका साथै भारतको रणनीतिक दूरदृष्टि तथा नयाँदिल्ली र वासिङ्टनबीचको सामरिक घनिष्टता पनि नयाँ चरणमा प्रवेश गरेको छ । यसरी एसियामा अमेरिकाको लक्ष्य नजिकिएकाले चीन र भारतबीचको सम्बन्धमा पर्ने असर, जापानसमक्ष प्रस्तुत हुन्ो अत्यन्तै सीमित विकल्प, रुसको भूमण्डलीय हैसियत पुनस्र्थापनाको आकांक्षामा पर्ने प्रभाव नेपालको वर्तमान र भविष्यका लागि महत्त्वपूर्ण हुन्ोछ ।विश्वमा आर्थिक शक्ति बन्न अग्रसर भारतका लागि ऊर्जाको बढ्दो आवश्यकता पूरा गर्न भरपर्दो नयाँ स्रोतहरूको खोजी अहिले उच्चतम राष्ट्रिय प्राथमिकता बनेको छ । उसको विद्युतीय शक्ति विकासको प्रगति अत्यन्तै मन्द रहेको छ । निरन्तर मूल्यवृद्धि हँुदै गएको तेल र ग्यासको आपूर्तिमा पनि अनिश्चितता बढ्दै गएकाले भरपर्दो आपूर्ति स्रोत खोज्न ऊ हतारिएको हो । यसमा सफल हुन्ा सकेन भने विश्व आर्थिक शक्तिहरूमध्येको एक बन्ने उसको सपना पूरा हुन्ो छैन । एनएसजीमा प्रवेश पाएपछि अब भारतलाई ऊर्जा उत्पादन गर्न आणविक भट्टीहरूका लागि आवश्यक युरोनियम विश्व बजारबाट किन्ने बाटो खुलेको छ । तर भियनामा प्राप्त यो सफलतालेराष्ट्रिय राजनीति र वैदेशिक सम्बन्धको रणनीतिमा गम्भीर लपेटाइ भने तत्कालै पर्न थालेको छ ।केही महिनापछि हुन्ो आमचुनावलाई आपmनो पक्षमा बनाउन भारतका प्रमुख पार्टीहरू अमेरिकासितको आणविक सम्बन्धविरुद्ध उभिएका छन् । नेहरूकालीन परराष्ट्र नीतिको असंलग्न धार त्यागेर अमेरिका संलग्न भएको र भविष्यमा आणविक परीक्षण गर्ने भारतको सार्वभौम हकसमेत गुमाएको आरोप लगाउँदै भारतीय जनता पार्टी र वामपन्थी पार्टीहरूले 'राष्ट्रवाद र राष्ट्रिय सम्मान' बचाउने नारा दिएका छन् । भारतको जनस्तरको राजनीतिमा अमेरिका विवादको प्रमुख मुद्दा बनेपछि स्वाभाविक रूपमा क्षेत्रीयपरिदृश्य तात्नेछ । अनि यो क्षेत्रमा अमेरिकाको प्रभुत्व कायम हुन्ो सम्भावनालाई असजिलो नजरले हेरिरहेका बाह्य शक्तिहरूको सक्रिय संलग्नताका लागि ढोका खुल्छ । यहाँनिर नेपालको हितमा विचारणीय तीनवटा पक्षहरू छन् ।१) चीनले एनएसजीमा भारतको प्रवेशलाई रोक्न नसके पनि आपmनो अनिच्छा र अप्रसन्नता लुकाएन । पाकिस्तान र भारतबीचको सामरिक सन्तुलन बनिरहेास् भन्ने चीनको चाहनामा नयाँदिल्ली र वासिङ्टनबीचको आणविक सम्बन्ध र भियनाको परिणामले ठेस लागेकै हो । एनएसजीमा भारतलाई प्रवेश गराउन अमेरिकाले लिएको अति सक्रिय भूमिका र राष्ट्रपति बुसले चिनियाँ राष्ट्रपतिलाई फोन गरेर 'भारतको बाटो नछेक्न दिएको चेतावनी' लेे एसियाको शक्ति सन्तुलनमा तनावयुक्त नयाँ चरण प्रारम्भ गरेको छ ।२) गएको मंगलबार शपथग्रहण गरेका पाकिस्तानी राष्ट्रपति जर्दारीले आगामी साता चीन गएर 'पाकिस्तानको ऊर्जा आवश्यकता पूरा गर्न आणविक सामग्री दिने' सम्झौता गर्ने जानकारी इस्लामावादले दिएको छ । यसरी भारत र अमेरिका एकातिर उभिएका छन् भने चीन र पाकिस्तान अर्कोतिर । एसियामा परिवर्तन हुन्ा थालेको शक्ति सन्तुलनमा अमेरिका र भारतलाई खुला मैदान नदिन बेइजिङ कटिबद्ध भएको भनेर यसलाई बुभmन उचित हुन्ोछ ।३) यदि अत्यन्तै महँगो भए पनि आणविक ऊर्जा विकासको गति तीव्र हुन्ा थाल्यो भने चर्को राजनीतिक मूल्य चुकाएर नेपालको जलस्रोतलाई आपसी हितमा उपयोग गर्ने शीघ्रता भारतले महसुस गर्ने छैन । यसले नेपालसित उसको मोलतोल गर्ने क्षमता बढाउनेछ । यसैले जलस्रोतलाई बाढीपहिरो र विनाशको स्रोतमा सीमित हुन्ा नदिन ऊर्जा विकासमा उपयोग गर्न नेपालले अब हतारिनै पर्ने भएको छ । आर्थिक विकासका लागि अन्य राष्ट्रिय स्रोत नभएको नेपालले हेक्का राख्नै पर्ने प्रमुख पक्ष यही हो । तर प्रमुख चार दलहरू चार दिशातिर मुन्टो बटारेर बसेको अहिलेको नेपालमा के यो सम्भव होला ?अब प्रश्न आउँछ, सोभियत संघको विघटनसँगै गुमेको विश्वशक्तिको हैसियत फिर्ता लिन कम्मर कसेको रुस अब कहाँ उभिन्छ ? एसियाको भूराजनीतिक र सामरिक धरातललाई आपmनो पक्षमा हेरफेर गर्ने अमेरिकाको रणनीतिक लक्ष्य प्राप्तिको हिस्सेदार बनेको भारत अमेरिकाकै बलमा एनएसजीमा प्रवेश गरेपछि रुसको निधारमा गाँठो पर्न थालेको छ । 'एक ध्रुवीय विश्वव्यवस्था अब स्वीकार्य नहुन्ो' रूसी राष्ट्रपतिको घोषणा र रूससितको गैरसैनिक आणविक सहयोग सम्बन्धविच्छेद गरेको अमेरिकी घोषणा यसैको परिणाम हो । सैनिक सामग्रीको आवश्यकताको ८० प्रतिशत रूसबाट आयात गरिरहेको भारत वासिङ्टनसित सामरिक घनिष्टता बढ्दै गएपछि आणविक इन्धन र परम्परागत शस्त्रास्त्रका लागि अमेरिकालाई छान्न बाध्य हुन्ो अवस्था छ । तर पेट्रोलियम पदार्थका लागि रूसी महासंघ र इरानसित हात बढाउनैपर्ने बाध्यताले भारतका लागि रोजाइ सरल छैन । यहाँनेर अमेरिकासितको सामरिक सम्बन्ध छेकबार बन्नेछ । ऊर्जाको बढ्दो आवश्यकता र घट्दै गएको आपूर्तिको भरपर्दो स्रोतले भारतले यो छेकबार हटाउन खोज्यो भने अमेरिकाले यो क्षेत्रका लागि नयाँ रणनीति बनाउनेछ र यसका लागि नयाँ सहयोगी पनि खोज्नेछ । परिणाममा सम्पूर्ण परिदृश्य फेरिनेछ ।अहिले प्राकृतिक स्रोत भण्डारबाट आर्जित शक्तिलाई राष्ट्रवादको प्रतीक तथा आपmनो प्रभावक्षेत्र विस्तारका अस्त्रको रूपमा प्रयोग गर्ने होड चलेको छ । यसले लोकतन्त्र र मानवीय मूल्यलाई वैदेशिक सम्बन्धको निर्देशक सिद्धान्त मान्ने मान्यतालाई त्यागेर ठूला र मझौला शक्तिहरूको परराष्ट्र नीति आपmनो भौतिक आवश्यकताका आपूर्तिमै केन्दि्रत बनाएको छ । सैनिक शासकहरूसित 'घनिष्ट दोस्ती' बनाएर भारतले म्यान्मारको ग्यासमा आँखा लगाइसकेको छ । सेनाद्वारा स्थापित र सेनाकै बलमा रहेको बंगलादेशको सरकार आपmनो भूमि भएर भारतका लागि म्यानमारको ग्यास पाइपलाइन बिछ्याउन सहमत भएको छ । सुडानको तेलखानीमा ठूलो लगानी भएका भारत र चीन ऊर्जाको स्वार्थमा अंकुश लाग्ने डरले खार्तुमलाई आपmना जनताप्रति २१ औं शताब्दी सुहाउँदो सभ्य व्यवहार गर्ने सल्लाह दिन पनि तयार छैनन् । भारतीय उपमहाद्वीपको शक्ति सन्तुलनको भविष्यको अवस्था तिब्बतमा बुन्न थालिएको जालो कति चाँडै कति बाक्लो हुन्छ वा यसलाई रोक्ने प्रयास कति बहुमुखी र प्रभावकारी हुन्छ भन्ने प्रश्नको जवाफमा निर्भर छ ।यसरी अनिश्चय बढ्दै गएकेा अवस्थामा राष्ट्रिय एकता नै हाम्रो चिन्तन हुन्ाुपर्छ । नेपालका लागि गौरवशाली लामो इतिहासको अंशियार भएको हेक्का राख्दै 'हामी राष्ट्रवादलाई सर्वोपरि ठान्ने नेपाली हाँै' भन्ने राष्ट्रिय एकताको सर्वमान्य आधारलाई बलियो पार्नुपर्छ । हामी राष्ट्रिय पहिचान गुमाएर पनि बाँच्न चाहने जाति हेाइनौं, स्वतन्त्र राष्ट्रको स्वाभिमानी नेपाली हौँ भन्ने सोच सबैलाई मान्य एउटै सूत्रमा एकताबद्ध बनाउने सर्वशक्तिवान शक्ति हो । यही शक्तिले मात्रै विश्व परिस्थिति जता मोडिए पनि हाम्रो राष्ट्रिय स्वार्थलाई सुरक्षित राख्न सक्छ । इतिहासले रोजेको पुस्ता बन्ने अवसर हाम्रो सामुन्ने छ । आत्मसम्मानको पर्यायवाची बनेको नेपालको इतिहासले धिक्कार्ने जोखिम पनि सामुन्ने नै छ ।(-लेखक पूर्वपरराष्ट्रमन्त्री हुन् ।)Posted on: 2008-09-11 22:36:38
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnepalinews.php?&nid=160320विश्व रंगमञ्चमा नयाँ घटनाहरू तीव्र गतिमा भइरहेका छन् । विश्वको शक्ति सन्तुलनमा गम्भीर झड्का दिने यी घटनाले दुई दशकदेखि विद्यमान भूमण्डलीय खाका, यसका प्रमुख पात्रहरू र तिनको हैसियतसँगै शक्ति राष्ट्रहरूको सामरिक चिन्तन, विशेष मित्र र सामरिक हिस्सेदारीमा हेरफेर गर्न थालेको छ । चार सातापहिले जर्जियामा रुसको नयाँ चाहना र आपmनो हैसियतमाथिको विश्वास देखिएको थियो । यसले पूर्ण आकार लिने र त्यसलाई नियन्त्रण गर्ने द्वन्द्वले सुरु गरेको परिवर्तनको लहरले अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय सम्बन्धका सबै फाँटहरूलाई प्रभावित पारेको छ ।अब परिवर्तनको अर्को चरण एसियामा हुन्ो संकेत छ । चीन र भारतबीच एसियाको नेतृत्वका लागि संघर्ष सुरु हुन थालेको छ । यसले एसियामा स्थायित्व ल्याउँछ कि ठूला शक्तिहरूबीचको द्वन्द्वको अखडा बनाउँछ, विश्व व्यवस्थालाई कस्तो संरचना र दिशातिर अग्रसर तुल्याउँछ भन्नेमा प्रस्ट छैन । तर यसमा कुन्ौ प्रभाव पार्न नसके पनि प्रभाव भोग्न भने बाध्य हुन्ौपर्ने नेपालजस्ता साना राष्ट्रहरूका लागि चिन्ताको भारी निरन्तर गह्रुँगो भएको छ । यो भारले आपmनो अस्तित्वलाई नै थिच्न नपाओस् र निर्माण हुन्ा थालेको भविष्यमा पनि आपmना आधारभूत स्वार्थहरू सुरक्षित राख्न सकियोस् भनेर अहिलेदेखि नेपाल सचेत हुन्ाुपर्छ । यसका लागि आवश्यक क्षमता बनाउन राष्ट्रिय शक्तिहरूको मन मिल्नै पर्छ ।हाम्रा छरछिमेकमा र विश्वशक्तिहरूको सम्बन्धको आधारभूत संरचनामा बहन थालेको मूलभूत परिवर्तनको हावाले यो एक साताभित्र थुप्रै झड्का दिएको छ । ४५ सदस्यीय परमाणु आपूर्ति समूह -एनएसजी) मा प्रवेश पाएपछि ३० वर्षदेखि भोगिरहेको आणविक नाकाबन्दीबाट भारतले मुक्ति पाएको छ । विश्व राजनीतिको प्रासंगिक शक्ति बन्ने भारतको धेरै पुरानो महत्त्वाकांक्षा पूरा हुने बाटो खुलेको छ । यसका साथै भारतको रणनीतिक दूरदृष्टि तथा नयाँदिल्ली र वासिङ्टनबीचको सामरिक घनिष्टता पनि नयाँ चरणमा प्रवेश गरेको छ । यसरी एसियामा अमेरिकाको लक्ष्य नजिकिएकाले चीन र भारतबीचको सम्बन्धमा पर्ने असर, जापानसमक्ष प्रस्तुत हुन्ो अत्यन्तै सीमित विकल्प, रुसको भूमण्डलीय हैसियत पुनस्र्थापनाको आकांक्षामा पर्ने प्रभाव नेपालको वर्तमान र भविष्यका लागि महत्त्वपूर्ण हुन्ोछ ।विश्वमा आर्थिक शक्ति बन्न अग्रसर भारतका लागि ऊर्जाको बढ्दो आवश्यकता पूरा गर्न भरपर्दो नयाँ स्रोतहरूको खोजी अहिले उच्चतम राष्ट्रिय प्राथमिकता बनेको छ । उसको विद्युतीय शक्ति विकासको प्रगति अत्यन्तै मन्द रहेको छ । निरन्तर मूल्यवृद्धि हँुदै गएको तेल र ग्यासको आपूर्तिमा पनि अनिश्चितता बढ्दै गएकाले भरपर्दो आपूर्ति स्रोत खोज्न ऊ हतारिएको हो । यसमा सफल हुन्ा सकेन भने विश्व आर्थिक शक्तिहरूमध्येको एक बन्ने उसको सपना पूरा हुन्ो छैन । एनएसजीमा प्रवेश पाएपछि अब भारतलाई ऊर्जा उत्पादन गर्न आणविक भट्टीहरूका लागि आवश्यक युरोनियम विश्व बजारबाट किन्ने बाटो खुलेको छ । तर भियनामा प्राप्त यो सफलतालेराष्ट्रिय राजनीति र वैदेशिक सम्बन्धको रणनीतिमा गम्भीर लपेटाइ भने तत्कालै पर्न थालेको छ ।केही महिनापछि हुन्ो आमचुनावलाई आपmनो पक्षमा बनाउन भारतका प्रमुख पार्टीहरू अमेरिकासितको आणविक सम्बन्धविरुद्ध उभिएका छन् । नेहरूकालीन परराष्ट्र नीतिको असंलग्न धार त्यागेर अमेरिका संलग्न भएको र भविष्यमा आणविक परीक्षण गर्ने भारतको सार्वभौम हकसमेत गुमाएको आरोप लगाउँदै भारतीय जनता पार्टी र वामपन्थी पार्टीहरूले 'राष्ट्रवाद र राष्ट्रिय सम्मान' बचाउने नारा दिएका छन् । भारतको जनस्तरको राजनीतिमा अमेरिका विवादको प्रमुख मुद्दा बनेपछि स्वाभाविक रूपमा क्षेत्रीयपरिदृश्य तात्नेछ । अनि यो क्षेत्रमा अमेरिकाको प्रभुत्व कायम हुन्ो सम्भावनालाई असजिलो नजरले हेरिरहेका बाह्य शक्तिहरूको सक्रिय संलग्नताका लागि ढोका खुल्छ । यहाँनिर नेपालको हितमा विचारणीय तीनवटा पक्षहरू छन् ।१) चीनले एनएसजीमा भारतको प्रवेशलाई रोक्न नसके पनि आपmनो अनिच्छा र अप्रसन्नता लुकाएन । पाकिस्तान र भारतबीचको सामरिक सन्तुलन बनिरहेास् भन्ने चीनको चाहनामा नयाँदिल्ली र वासिङ्टनबीचको आणविक सम्बन्ध र भियनाको परिणामले ठेस लागेकै हो । एनएसजीमा भारतलाई प्रवेश गराउन अमेरिकाले लिएको अति सक्रिय भूमिका र राष्ट्रपति बुसले चिनियाँ राष्ट्रपतिलाई फोन गरेर 'भारतको बाटो नछेक्न दिएको चेतावनी' लेे एसियाको शक्ति सन्तुलनमा तनावयुक्त नयाँ चरण प्रारम्भ गरेको छ ।२) गएको मंगलबार शपथग्रहण गरेका पाकिस्तानी राष्ट्रपति जर्दारीले आगामी साता चीन गएर 'पाकिस्तानको ऊर्जा आवश्यकता पूरा गर्न आणविक सामग्री दिने' सम्झौता गर्ने जानकारी इस्लामावादले दिएको छ । यसरी भारत र अमेरिका एकातिर उभिएका छन् भने चीन र पाकिस्तान अर्कोतिर । एसियामा परिवर्तन हुन्ा थालेको शक्ति सन्तुलनमा अमेरिका र भारतलाई खुला मैदान नदिन बेइजिङ कटिबद्ध भएको भनेर यसलाई बुभmन उचित हुन्ोछ ।३) यदि अत्यन्तै महँगो भए पनि आणविक ऊर्जा विकासको गति तीव्र हुन्ा थाल्यो भने चर्को राजनीतिक मूल्य चुकाएर नेपालको जलस्रोतलाई आपसी हितमा उपयोग गर्ने शीघ्रता भारतले महसुस गर्ने छैन । यसले नेपालसित उसको मोलतोल गर्ने क्षमता बढाउनेछ । यसैले जलस्रोतलाई बाढीपहिरो र विनाशको स्रोतमा सीमित हुन्ा नदिन ऊर्जा विकासमा उपयोग गर्न नेपालले अब हतारिनै पर्ने भएको छ । आर्थिक विकासका लागि अन्य राष्ट्रिय स्रोत नभएको नेपालले हेक्का राख्नै पर्ने प्रमुख पक्ष यही हो । तर प्रमुख चार दलहरू चार दिशातिर मुन्टो बटारेर बसेको अहिलेको नेपालमा के यो सम्भव होला ?अब प्रश्न आउँछ, सोभियत संघको विघटनसँगै गुमेको विश्वशक्तिको हैसियत फिर्ता लिन कम्मर कसेको रुस अब कहाँ उभिन्छ ? एसियाको भूराजनीतिक र सामरिक धरातललाई आपmनो पक्षमा हेरफेर गर्ने अमेरिकाको रणनीतिक लक्ष्य प्राप्तिको हिस्सेदार बनेको भारत अमेरिकाकै बलमा एनएसजीमा प्रवेश गरेपछि रुसको निधारमा गाँठो पर्न थालेको छ । 'एक ध्रुवीय विश्वव्यवस्था अब स्वीकार्य नहुन्ो' रूसी राष्ट्रपतिको घोषणा र रूससितको गैरसैनिक आणविक सहयोग सम्बन्धविच्छेद गरेको अमेरिकी घोषणा यसैको परिणाम हो । सैनिक सामग्रीको आवश्यकताको ८० प्रतिशत रूसबाट आयात गरिरहेको भारत वासिङ्टनसित सामरिक घनिष्टता बढ्दै गएपछि आणविक इन्धन र परम्परागत शस्त्रास्त्रका लागि अमेरिकालाई छान्न बाध्य हुन्ो अवस्था छ । तर पेट्रोलियम पदार्थका लागि रूसी महासंघ र इरानसित हात बढाउनैपर्ने बाध्यताले भारतका लागि रोजाइ सरल छैन । यहाँनेर अमेरिकासितको सामरिक सम्बन्ध छेकबार बन्नेछ । ऊर्जाको बढ्दो आवश्यकता र घट्दै गएको आपूर्तिको भरपर्दो स्रोतले भारतले यो छेकबार हटाउन खोज्यो भने अमेरिकाले यो क्षेत्रका लागि नयाँ रणनीति बनाउनेछ र यसका लागि नयाँ सहयोगी पनि खोज्नेछ । परिणाममा सम्पूर्ण परिदृश्य फेरिनेछ ।अहिले प्राकृतिक स्रोत भण्डारबाट आर्जित शक्तिलाई राष्ट्रवादको प्रतीक तथा आपmनो प्रभावक्षेत्र विस्तारका अस्त्रको रूपमा प्रयोग गर्ने होड चलेको छ । यसले लोकतन्त्र र मानवीय मूल्यलाई वैदेशिक सम्बन्धको निर्देशक सिद्धान्त मान्ने मान्यतालाई त्यागेर ठूला र मझौला शक्तिहरूको परराष्ट्र नीति आपmनो भौतिक आवश्यकताका आपूर्तिमै केन्दि्रत बनाएको छ । सैनिक शासकहरूसित 'घनिष्ट दोस्ती' बनाएर भारतले म्यान्मारको ग्यासमा आँखा लगाइसकेको छ । सेनाद्वारा स्थापित र सेनाकै बलमा रहेको बंगलादेशको सरकार आपmनो भूमि भएर भारतका लागि म्यानमारको ग्यास पाइपलाइन बिछ्याउन सहमत भएको छ । सुडानको तेलखानीमा ठूलो लगानी भएका भारत र चीन ऊर्जाको स्वार्थमा अंकुश लाग्ने डरले खार्तुमलाई आपmना जनताप्रति २१ औं शताब्दी सुहाउँदो सभ्य व्यवहार गर्ने सल्लाह दिन पनि तयार छैनन् । भारतीय उपमहाद्वीपको शक्ति सन्तुलनको भविष्यको अवस्था तिब्बतमा बुन्न थालिएको जालो कति चाँडै कति बाक्लो हुन्छ वा यसलाई रोक्ने प्रयास कति बहुमुखी र प्रभावकारी हुन्छ भन्ने प्रश्नको जवाफमा निर्भर छ ।यसरी अनिश्चय बढ्दै गएकेा अवस्थामा राष्ट्रिय एकता नै हाम्रो चिन्तन हुन्ाुपर्छ । नेपालका लागि गौरवशाली लामो इतिहासको अंशियार भएको हेक्का राख्दै 'हामी राष्ट्रवादलाई सर्वोपरि ठान्ने नेपाली हाँै' भन्ने राष्ट्रिय एकताको सर्वमान्य आधारलाई बलियो पार्नुपर्छ । हामी राष्ट्रिय पहिचान गुमाएर पनि बाँच्न चाहने जाति हेाइनौं, स्वतन्त्र राष्ट्रको स्वाभिमानी नेपाली हौँ भन्ने सोच सबैलाई मान्य एउटै सूत्रमा एकताबद्ध बनाउने सर्वशक्तिवान शक्ति हो । यही शक्तिले मात्रै विश्व परिस्थिति जता मोडिए पनि हाम्रो राष्ट्रिय स्वार्थलाई सुरक्षित राख्न सक्छ । इतिहासले रोजेको पुस्ता बन्ने अवसर हाम्रो सामुन्ने छ । आत्मसम्मानको पर्यायवाची बनेको नेपालको इतिहासले धिक्कार्ने जोखिम पनि सामुन्ने नै छ ।(-लेखक पूर्वपरराष्ट्रमन्त्री हुन् ।)Posted on: 2008-09-11 22:36:38
Monday, September 8, 2008
Diplomats think Foreign Ministry does not exist - Upendra Yadav
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=159828
Foreign Minister Upendra Yadav started his political career as a UML cadre and later switched to the Maoists. He was detained in India for three months along with Matrika Prasad Yadav and Suresh Ale Magar. The BJP-led NDA government extradited Matrika and Suresh to Nepal, but Upendra was released.
Upendra Yadav subsequently joined the Madhesi People's Rights Forum (MPRF), which became a regional political party after the Madhes uprising. He defeated Sujata Koirala in Sunsari-5 constituency in the Constituent Assembly election. Foreign Minister Yadav returned from India after attending a conference of the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) in New Delhi.
Yadav spoke with Puran P Bista and Bishnu Budhathoki of The Kathmandu Post on the outcome of his visit.
Excerpts:
Q: How do you assess your trip to Delhi?
Yadav: I attended the ministerial-level BIMSTEC meeting. We discussed how to connect Thailand, Burma, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bhutan by air and land. We also talked about sharing power which will bring us closer to each other. I foresee a great potential for economic growth if we share power and raise trade among the BIMSTEC member-countries.
Secondly, we discussed how to increase trade. BIMSTEC acts like a bridge between SAARC and ASEAN. Commerce is the main medium to connect these countries. We also discussed how to raise bilateral trade. For instance, I asked India to provide us a land route to Bangladesh. The Bangladesh foreign minister also spoke with India to provide us an overland way to facilitate commerce with Bangladesh.
We have never been able to do significant business with Bangladesh due to lack of a proper route. Nepal and Bangladesh are separated by barely 60 kilometers of Indian territory. Similarly, thousands of Sri Lankans visit Nepal. They have to come by air via India or through a third country. We need to look for sea connectivity with Sri Lanka. Mangla port in Bangladesh is a choice to establish bilateral trade with Sri Lanka.
BIMSTEC provides us a platform to discuss such obstacles and resolve them. Bangladesh has allowed us to use its Mangla port. It is nearer, very cost-effective and convenient. But we cannot use it unless India provides us a land route. We want India to allow our vehicles to enter Bangladesh so that we can use Mangla port. I have approached India for that facility.Q: What was India's response?
Yadav: India said that it would look into the issue even though it was a security concern. Until now, we have been using Indian trucks to ferry goods between Bangladesh and Nepal. It's a hassle and expensive and time-consuming. Our demand is that Bangladesh and Nepal should be allowed to conduct bilateral trade through this route. We have not been able to do substantial trade with Bangladesh because we have no access to the sea. We can even trade with Sri Lanka if we are allowed to use Mangla port.
Among the BIMSTEC countries, Thailand and India are ahead of us in terms of bilateral trade. We have never been able to conduct any trade with other countries due to lack of access to a sea route. We produce good quality garments, but we have been unable to export them to other countries. As a result, we have been unable to provide employment to our youth. Unless we focus on expanding trade with other countries, we cannot think of economic development. I think India should allow us to use Mangla port.
Q: What did you discuss with the Indian foreign minister in reference to bilateral ties?
Yadav: There are a number of bilateral issues to be resolved. These differences are mere suspicions. They cannot remain obstacles to our trade and bilateral relations. We are confused and look at each other suspiciously. The Koshi treaty or the 1950 treaty is an example. Such confusion has harmed trade. India has agreed to review the 1950 treaty. The foreign minister told me that India was ready to amend it if Nepal deemed it necessary. India is ready to replace the old treaty with a new one as it has done with Bhutan.
We also think that the 1950 treaty should be updated as per our needs so that we can strengthen our bilateral ties and carry out trade without any hassles. But the question is what kind of treaty Nepal wants with India. We have not even discussed it at length. It is now our responsibility to come up with definite proposals. India is open to suggestions. We should decide whether we want to dump the 1950 treaty and sign a new one or just update it as required.
Q: What is in the treaty that needs to be revised or canceled?
Yadav: Just listen to some of our leaders who speak out against India or the 1950 treaty. I call such clamor, which hurts our bilateral relations, cheap propaganda.
But we must keep in mind that the 1950 treaty has created an open border, established better ties and given us free cross-border movement. Our relations with India cannot be compared with other South Asian countries. What we need to do now is clear up bilateral confusion and deepen our trade ties. I do not mean that we should replace the old treaty at the cost of our sovereignty. Both countries must work together for the benefit of their peoples. For that, we should sit, discuss and see that the new treaty fulfills our economic and political aspirations.
Q: Why did India fail to repair and maintain the Koshi Barrage as it was India's responsibility to do so?
Yadav: India has explained that the local people did not allow the Indian team to repair the spurs on time. Obviously, the local residents did create some problems when the Indian team arrived. But India should not have blamed Nepal. It should have approached the Nepali government if the Indian team had faced any problems. The residents demanded money and the Indians were not ready to pay. Instead of informing the Nepali government, they returned thinking that they would settle the matter the following year. Unfortunately, the embankments burst and over three million Indians were driven from their homes by the flood waters.
We also suffered from the deluge. Eastern Nepal has been totally cut off. Over 50,000 people have been rendered homeless. So blaming each other for the Koshi disaster will get us nowhere. We have to acknowledge the blunder and work to prevent further erosion of the embankments.
Q: Do you think that the local people obstructed the repair work? I think the problem was not maintenance. India was well aware of the siltation and the danger it posed.
Yadav: All of us were very much aware of the siltation problem. Nobody had thought that the Koshi would change its course so easily. But had the local people allowed the Indian team to work, things would not have been so bad. The Koshi could have been tamed, and the repair work, if the Indian team had been allowed to carry it out, would have protected the spurs. India insists that Nepali laborers did not allow the Indian team to do the repairs.
But India should understand that the strong nexus between the contractor, engineers and Bihar government officials was responsible for the Koshi disaster, regardless of how India explains it. The people responsible for maintenance work on a commission basis. Once there is talk of commission, the laborers get cheated. We should not only blame the nexus because the Koshi has changed its course. Siltation and a rising riverbed pushed the Koshi back to its old course. Now it cannot be brought back. We were aware of such problems. For the past 15 years, the Indians did nothing to keep the barrage in good repair. That was India's biggest mistake.
Q: How can the Koshi be tamed? Did you discuss the matter with the Indian authorities?
Yadav: We cannot think of bringing the Koshi back to its earlier course. What we need is a detailed study of the Koshi and its tributaries. If we can control the tributaries, then we may be able to lessen its fury. Otherwise, the Koshi will continue to displace thousands of people every year. This is a technical matter. I cannot say what should be done. Currently, we have to focus on rehabilitation. After we have completed the rehabilitation work, we can think of doing a thorough study of the Koshi to work out a permanent solution. Can we divert water from some of the tributaries to reduce the volume of water in the Koshi? This is the key question.
Q: India has been insisting on the Koshi high dam project. Will that be a permanent solution?
Yadav: We did not discuss anything about the Koshi high dam. Unless we conduct a scientific study of the Koshi, we cannot think of building a high dam. We now know that silt buildup was the major reason behind the Koshi disaster. Parts of north Bihar have become a lake. Building a high dam will also be a temporary solution.
In addition, India built the Koshi Barrage at an unsuitable site. Surveyors had proposed building the barrage further upstream. But India erected it near the border with the intention of irrigating Bihar rather than Nepal and Bihar.
Q: One of the cabinet ministers has said that the Koshi Treaty was dead after the river breached its embankment. What do you say?
Yadav: Since the river has changed its course and it cannot be brought back, there is no point in debating on the Koshi Treaty. India built it with mutual understanding. The understanding is no longer valid because the river has taken a new course. However, the Koshi wreaks havoc both in Nepal and India. So the two countries must sit down and discuss how to minimize the impact of such disasters.
Q: For some years, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been in the shadows. It is not as active as it should be. How are you going to revive it?
Yadav: In the eyes of foreign envoys, Nepal's Foreign Ministry does not exist. Diplomats visit Nepal, but no one knows who meets them. Some diplomats bypass the Foreign Ministry and meet with the prime minister directly. We have been unable to exercise our foreign policy for the country's economic benefit. In the absence of a proper code of conduct, government officials raise irrelevant questions. The other day, the South Korean deputy chief of mission visited me with a complaint which had nothing to do with the Foreign Ministry. The Foreign Ministry's tasks are being done by other ministries. There must be proper guidelines and channels. Officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are competent people. They are preparing a manual to make the ministry more effective and efficient.
Foreign Minister Upendra Yadav started his political career as a UML cadre and later switched to the Maoists. He was detained in India for three months along with Matrika Prasad Yadav and Suresh Ale Magar. The BJP-led NDA government extradited Matrika and Suresh to Nepal, but Upendra was released.
Upendra Yadav subsequently joined the Madhesi People's Rights Forum (MPRF), which became a regional political party after the Madhes uprising. He defeated Sujata Koirala in Sunsari-5 constituency in the Constituent Assembly election. Foreign Minister Yadav returned from India after attending a conference of the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) in New Delhi.
Yadav spoke with Puran P Bista and Bishnu Budhathoki of The Kathmandu Post on the outcome of his visit.
Excerpts:
Q: How do you assess your trip to Delhi?
Yadav: I attended the ministerial-level BIMSTEC meeting. We discussed how to connect Thailand, Burma, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bhutan by air and land. We also talked about sharing power which will bring us closer to each other. I foresee a great potential for economic growth if we share power and raise trade among the BIMSTEC member-countries.
Secondly, we discussed how to increase trade. BIMSTEC acts like a bridge between SAARC and ASEAN. Commerce is the main medium to connect these countries. We also discussed how to raise bilateral trade. For instance, I asked India to provide us a land route to Bangladesh. The Bangladesh foreign minister also spoke with India to provide us an overland way to facilitate commerce with Bangladesh.
We have never been able to do significant business with Bangladesh due to lack of a proper route. Nepal and Bangladesh are separated by barely 60 kilometers of Indian territory. Similarly, thousands of Sri Lankans visit Nepal. They have to come by air via India or through a third country. We need to look for sea connectivity with Sri Lanka. Mangla port in Bangladesh is a choice to establish bilateral trade with Sri Lanka.
BIMSTEC provides us a platform to discuss such obstacles and resolve them. Bangladesh has allowed us to use its Mangla port. It is nearer, very cost-effective and convenient. But we cannot use it unless India provides us a land route. We want India to allow our vehicles to enter Bangladesh so that we can use Mangla port. I have approached India for that facility.Q: What was India's response?
Yadav: India said that it would look into the issue even though it was a security concern. Until now, we have been using Indian trucks to ferry goods between Bangladesh and Nepal. It's a hassle and expensive and time-consuming. Our demand is that Bangladesh and Nepal should be allowed to conduct bilateral trade through this route. We have not been able to do substantial trade with Bangladesh because we have no access to the sea. We can even trade with Sri Lanka if we are allowed to use Mangla port.
Among the BIMSTEC countries, Thailand and India are ahead of us in terms of bilateral trade. We have never been able to conduct any trade with other countries due to lack of access to a sea route. We produce good quality garments, but we have been unable to export them to other countries. As a result, we have been unable to provide employment to our youth. Unless we focus on expanding trade with other countries, we cannot think of economic development. I think India should allow us to use Mangla port.
Q: What did you discuss with the Indian foreign minister in reference to bilateral ties?
Yadav: There are a number of bilateral issues to be resolved. These differences are mere suspicions. They cannot remain obstacles to our trade and bilateral relations. We are confused and look at each other suspiciously. The Koshi treaty or the 1950 treaty is an example. Such confusion has harmed trade. India has agreed to review the 1950 treaty. The foreign minister told me that India was ready to amend it if Nepal deemed it necessary. India is ready to replace the old treaty with a new one as it has done with Bhutan.
We also think that the 1950 treaty should be updated as per our needs so that we can strengthen our bilateral ties and carry out trade without any hassles. But the question is what kind of treaty Nepal wants with India. We have not even discussed it at length. It is now our responsibility to come up with definite proposals. India is open to suggestions. We should decide whether we want to dump the 1950 treaty and sign a new one or just update it as required.
Q: What is in the treaty that needs to be revised or canceled?
Yadav: Just listen to some of our leaders who speak out against India or the 1950 treaty. I call such clamor, which hurts our bilateral relations, cheap propaganda.
But we must keep in mind that the 1950 treaty has created an open border, established better ties and given us free cross-border movement. Our relations with India cannot be compared with other South Asian countries. What we need to do now is clear up bilateral confusion and deepen our trade ties. I do not mean that we should replace the old treaty at the cost of our sovereignty. Both countries must work together for the benefit of their peoples. For that, we should sit, discuss and see that the new treaty fulfills our economic and political aspirations.
Q: Why did India fail to repair and maintain the Koshi Barrage as it was India's responsibility to do so?
Yadav: India has explained that the local people did not allow the Indian team to repair the spurs on time. Obviously, the local residents did create some problems when the Indian team arrived. But India should not have blamed Nepal. It should have approached the Nepali government if the Indian team had faced any problems. The residents demanded money and the Indians were not ready to pay. Instead of informing the Nepali government, they returned thinking that they would settle the matter the following year. Unfortunately, the embankments burst and over three million Indians were driven from their homes by the flood waters.
We also suffered from the deluge. Eastern Nepal has been totally cut off. Over 50,000 people have been rendered homeless. So blaming each other for the Koshi disaster will get us nowhere. We have to acknowledge the blunder and work to prevent further erosion of the embankments.
Q: Do you think that the local people obstructed the repair work? I think the problem was not maintenance. India was well aware of the siltation and the danger it posed.
Yadav: All of us were very much aware of the siltation problem. Nobody had thought that the Koshi would change its course so easily. But had the local people allowed the Indian team to work, things would not have been so bad. The Koshi could have been tamed, and the repair work, if the Indian team had been allowed to carry it out, would have protected the spurs. India insists that Nepali laborers did not allow the Indian team to do the repairs.
But India should understand that the strong nexus between the contractor, engineers and Bihar government officials was responsible for the Koshi disaster, regardless of how India explains it. The people responsible for maintenance work on a commission basis. Once there is talk of commission, the laborers get cheated. We should not only blame the nexus because the Koshi has changed its course. Siltation and a rising riverbed pushed the Koshi back to its old course. Now it cannot be brought back. We were aware of such problems. For the past 15 years, the Indians did nothing to keep the barrage in good repair. That was India's biggest mistake.
Q: How can the Koshi be tamed? Did you discuss the matter with the Indian authorities?
Yadav: We cannot think of bringing the Koshi back to its earlier course. What we need is a detailed study of the Koshi and its tributaries. If we can control the tributaries, then we may be able to lessen its fury. Otherwise, the Koshi will continue to displace thousands of people every year. This is a technical matter. I cannot say what should be done. Currently, we have to focus on rehabilitation. After we have completed the rehabilitation work, we can think of doing a thorough study of the Koshi to work out a permanent solution. Can we divert water from some of the tributaries to reduce the volume of water in the Koshi? This is the key question.
Q: India has been insisting on the Koshi high dam project. Will that be a permanent solution?
Yadav: We did not discuss anything about the Koshi high dam. Unless we conduct a scientific study of the Koshi, we cannot think of building a high dam. We now know that silt buildup was the major reason behind the Koshi disaster. Parts of north Bihar have become a lake. Building a high dam will also be a temporary solution.
In addition, India built the Koshi Barrage at an unsuitable site. Surveyors had proposed building the barrage further upstream. But India erected it near the border with the intention of irrigating Bihar rather than Nepal and Bihar.
Q: One of the cabinet ministers has said that the Koshi Treaty was dead after the river breached its embankment. What do you say?
Yadav: Since the river has changed its course and it cannot be brought back, there is no point in debating on the Koshi Treaty. India built it with mutual understanding. The understanding is no longer valid because the river has taken a new course. However, the Koshi wreaks havoc both in Nepal and India. So the two countries must sit down and discuss how to minimize the impact of such disasters.
Q: For some years, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been in the shadows. It is not as active as it should be. How are you going to revive it?
Yadav: In the eyes of foreign envoys, Nepal's Foreign Ministry does not exist. Diplomats visit Nepal, but no one knows who meets them. Some diplomats bypass the Foreign Ministry and meet with the prime minister directly. We have been unable to exercise our foreign policy for the country's economic benefit. In the absence of a proper code of conduct, government officials raise irrelevant questions. The other day, the South Korean deputy chief of mission visited me with a complaint which had nothing to do with the Foreign Ministry. The Foreign Ministry's tasks are being done by other ministries. There must be proper guidelines and channels. Officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are competent people. They are preparing a manual to make the ministry more effective and efficient.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
India and Nepal play blame game over Bihar floods
Updated September 6, 2008 09:06:40
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/200809/s2357201.htm?tab=latest
Officials in India and Nepal are blaming each other for the devastating floods in Bihar.Claire Mackay reports the floods have left more than three million people homeless.The flooding started when the Kosi river burst an embankment in southern Nepal.India has long been responsible for maintaining the embankment to protect people living down stream in Bihar. Nepal says the Bihar flooding is the result of India neglecting its duty. An Indian Embassy spokesman from Kathmandu says engineers knew there was a problem in the flood defences in April but Nepalese officials physically prevented them from fixing it. Local activists and the group Transparency International say widespread bribery and corruption on both sides is to blame. Tens of thousands of people are still stranded in the flooded state. And the relief effort is expected to go on for many months.
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/200809/s2357201.htm?tab=latest
Officials in India and Nepal are blaming each other for the devastating floods in Bihar.Claire Mackay reports the floods have left more than three million people homeless.The flooding started when the Kosi river burst an embankment in southern Nepal.India has long been responsible for maintaining the embankment to protect people living down stream in Bihar. Nepal says the Bihar flooding is the result of India neglecting its duty. An Indian Embassy spokesman from Kathmandu says engineers knew there was a problem in the flood defences in April but Nepalese officials physically prevented them from fixing it. Local activists and the group Transparency International say widespread bribery and corruption on both sides is to blame. Tens of thousands of people are still stranded in the flooded state. And the relief effort is expected to go on for many months.
For Prachanda, a tale of two cities - By Dhruba Adhikari
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/archive/2008/others/guestcolumn/sep/guest_columns_03.php
From the standpoint of astrologers, it heralded an ominous start. Within hours after taking the oath as the Republic of Nepal's first elected - and Maoist - prime minister, Prachanda received reports of the collapse of a river embankment resulting in floods that have left more than 50,000 people homeless in the country's southeastern plains.
The incident came days ahead of his visit to China, a controversial move that would end a long tradition requiring new Nepali leaders to take a trip to India first. The move has been criticized by some, but others see it as a chance to rebalance political relationships between the two powerful neighbors.
And, as the fallout from the devastating flooding was about to display, some decades-old agreements between Nepal and India may be in need of renegotiating.
Before leaving for Beijing, Prachanda toured flood-affected areas, collecting firsthand information on the scale of the disaster and the hardships rural people were forced to endure. An unspecified number villagers living along the Koshi River were swept away, together with their livestock and livelihoods. Initial estimates of Agriculture Ministry officials put the loss of crops, mainly paddy, at 300 million rupees (US$4.3 million).
Farmers in the area lost their vegetable fields, fisheries and crops such as banana and sugarcane. Administrators in Sunsari district reported the arrival of 25,000 marooned Indian nationals from the state of Bihar who were seeking shelter and relief. Humanitarian considerations compelled Nepali authorities to shoulder this additional responsibility.
The eastern region remains cut off from the rest of the country as sections of highway and bridges were washed away. It is likely to take several weeks, if not months, before any sustainable traffic link between the regions is restored. Nepal's industrial and commercial hub, Biraatnagar, is located in this region.
Devastation across the border in India created an equally unfortunate scenario. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described it as a national calamity. More than 2 million people are said to have been affected in northern Bihar.
Indian authorities are struggling with an onslaught of problems: helping with relief efforts, working to regulate the river's flow which is swiftly changing course, and countering accusations from the Nepali side of gross negligence in their repair and maintenance of the Koshi barrage and other associated structures.
The Koshi Agreement, signed in 1954, stipulates that the Indian government is responsible for the operation, protection and management of the project for 199 years. India gets the bulk of the benefits, mainly in terms of irrigating farmlands.
The cause of the latest havoc is negligence on the part of those responsible for monitoring and maintenance. It is not the monsoon waters which were initially thought to have suddenly raised the level of the river. Experts say the river flow was actually lower than average for the month of August.
"It was not a natural disaster, but a man-made tragedy," said expert Dipak Gyawali in a newspaper interview published on September 1. Gyawali described the Indian Embassy statement on the issue as "highly undiplomatic and breathtakingly ill-informed".
The Indian Embassy has placed the blame on Nepal. Coincidentally, three former foreign ministers representing three different political parties have made public statements essentially saying the same thing: that it is India which is to be blamed for the losses Nepal is made to suffer. The question of compensation has also been raised. Incumbent Foreign Minister Upendra Yadav, who hails from the affected region, flew to New Delhi last week to hold talks with Indian authorities.
While Prachanda has been criticized on other issues, such as an attempt to impose a communist agenda on the newly-born republic, none of the active political parties has objected to his statement on the breach of the Koshi bank and the subsequent devastation. He said the 1954 Koshi Agreement was a "historic mistake", because the lion's share of benefits are taken by the Indian side - leaving Nepal to endure all the bad effects of the project.
Koshi is one several treaties that India has concluded with Nepal since 1950 - the year Nepal overthrew a 104-year-old autocratic rule by the Ranas. Also controversial is the Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1950. There is a widely-held perception in Nepal that these are examples of "unequal treaties".
The Maoists' voice for a review of these pacts is louder than others. That the Koshi case has come to the forefront is viewed by some analysts as a blessing in disguise for Prachanda. It has gone some way in justifying his decision to skip the tradition of making New Delhi his first port of call.
King Birendra, who was killed in a palace assassination in 2001, had once publicly said that Nepal felt it was "cheated" by India on the Koshi project.
In Beijing, President Hu Jintao made a rare gesture and thanked Prachanda for attending the Olympics' closing ceremony just a week after being sworn in. "This [trip] demonstrates the attention Nepal attaches to relations with China," Xinhua news agency quoted him as saying on August 25.
Prime Minister Wen Jiabao added, "Ours is a model relationship between a big and smaller neighbor based on mutual respect and equality." On return to Kathmandu, Prachanda described his journey to the Chinese capital as "highly successful".
To allay purported Indian suspicions, he said the visit was event-specific and that his first "political" visit would take him to India shortly - and before he goes to address the United Nations General Assembly in New York at the end of this month.
"In fact, there was no need for him to offer these apologetic remarks [about visiting India]," Bhekh Bahadur Thapa, a former ambassador to India, told Asia Times Online. Thapa, who also had a stint as foreign minister, was twice ambassador to the United States.
An opinion poll conducted by a Nepali news agency this week showed that almost 40% of 3,067 respondents felt that Prachanda made the right move in traveling to China first. Only about 9% of readers thought he should have gone to India first. The remaining 41% of voters said it didn't matter.
It probably does matter to New Delhi. There seem to be people in Indian officialdom who felt slighted at Prachanda's decision to break the tradition of traveling to New Delhi to pay respects to the Indian establishment. They apparently do not realize that Nepal has abandoned more significant traditions, such as the monarchy and the Hindu religion.
Referring to Prachanda's choice of Beijing over New Delhi, one Times of India writer dubbed it a "snub" as the Indian invitation was sent much earlier. Retired colonel R Hariharan wrote on August 12, "If China's influence expands rapidly in Nepal, it holds serious portends for New Delhi's strategic security calculations."
Because India is a democracy, it does not lack divergent views on contemporary issues. This applies to the Indian policy on Nepal as well.
In the words of Dr S Chandrasekharan of the South Asia Analysis Group, "New Delhi needs to comprehend Prachanda's initiative for a parity in relations with India and China in a changing world. It is time India finally gives up this 'make-believe' special relations which never existed in the minds of the Nepalese administration".
Arvind R Deo, India's ambassador to Nepal in the late 1980s, has a slightly different opinion. In his view, although China shares a border with Nepal, it is more of a notional neighbor as high Himalayan peaks make economic interaction difficult. Geopolitical considerations continue to be relevant. Indian diplomacy therefore needs to be conducted with greater effectiveness, wrote Deo on August 29 in The Economic Times.
However, Deo also criticized public attempts to characterize Nepal as a client state of India and called Indian ambassador Rakesh Sood's conspicuous absence at the airport to see Prachanda off to China "ill-conceived".
King Prithvi Naryan Shaha, who laid the foundation for present-day Nepal in 1768, wanted his country to live at peace with India and China. Although that basic premise holds force today, tumultuous changes have taken place in both countries over the past 240 years. For example, the two nations - together with Pakistan - have become nuclear powers.
"We cannot live at peace even with India and China, unless we live at peace with the rest of the world," wrote the late Y N Khanal, a longstanding expert on Nepali diplomacy, in a book published in 2000.
(Adhikary is a Kathmandu-based journalist and commentator. This article is reproduced here courtesy www.atimes.com-- Ed.)
From the standpoint of astrologers, it heralded an ominous start. Within hours after taking the oath as the Republic of Nepal's first elected - and Maoist - prime minister, Prachanda received reports of the collapse of a river embankment resulting in floods that have left more than 50,000 people homeless in the country's southeastern plains.
The incident came days ahead of his visit to China, a controversial move that would end a long tradition requiring new Nepali leaders to take a trip to India first. The move has been criticized by some, but others see it as a chance to rebalance political relationships between the two powerful neighbors.
And, as the fallout from the devastating flooding was about to display, some decades-old agreements between Nepal and India may be in need of renegotiating.
Before leaving for Beijing, Prachanda toured flood-affected areas, collecting firsthand information on the scale of the disaster and the hardships rural people were forced to endure. An unspecified number villagers living along the Koshi River were swept away, together with their livestock and livelihoods. Initial estimates of Agriculture Ministry officials put the loss of crops, mainly paddy, at 300 million rupees (US$4.3 million).
Farmers in the area lost their vegetable fields, fisheries and crops such as banana and sugarcane. Administrators in Sunsari district reported the arrival of 25,000 marooned Indian nationals from the state of Bihar who were seeking shelter and relief. Humanitarian considerations compelled Nepali authorities to shoulder this additional responsibility.
The eastern region remains cut off from the rest of the country as sections of highway and bridges were washed away. It is likely to take several weeks, if not months, before any sustainable traffic link between the regions is restored. Nepal's industrial and commercial hub, Biraatnagar, is located in this region.
Devastation across the border in India created an equally unfortunate scenario. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described it as a national calamity. More than 2 million people are said to have been affected in northern Bihar.
Indian authorities are struggling with an onslaught of problems: helping with relief efforts, working to regulate the river's flow which is swiftly changing course, and countering accusations from the Nepali side of gross negligence in their repair and maintenance of the Koshi barrage and other associated structures.
The Koshi Agreement, signed in 1954, stipulates that the Indian government is responsible for the operation, protection and management of the project for 199 years. India gets the bulk of the benefits, mainly in terms of irrigating farmlands.
The cause of the latest havoc is negligence on the part of those responsible for monitoring and maintenance. It is not the monsoon waters which were initially thought to have suddenly raised the level of the river. Experts say the river flow was actually lower than average for the month of August.
"It was not a natural disaster, but a man-made tragedy," said expert Dipak Gyawali in a newspaper interview published on September 1. Gyawali described the Indian Embassy statement on the issue as "highly undiplomatic and breathtakingly ill-informed".
The Indian Embassy has placed the blame on Nepal. Coincidentally, three former foreign ministers representing three different political parties have made public statements essentially saying the same thing: that it is India which is to be blamed for the losses Nepal is made to suffer. The question of compensation has also been raised. Incumbent Foreign Minister Upendra Yadav, who hails from the affected region, flew to New Delhi last week to hold talks with Indian authorities.
While Prachanda has been criticized on other issues, such as an attempt to impose a communist agenda on the newly-born republic, none of the active political parties has objected to his statement on the breach of the Koshi bank and the subsequent devastation. He said the 1954 Koshi Agreement was a "historic mistake", because the lion's share of benefits are taken by the Indian side - leaving Nepal to endure all the bad effects of the project.
Koshi is one several treaties that India has concluded with Nepal since 1950 - the year Nepal overthrew a 104-year-old autocratic rule by the Ranas. Also controversial is the Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1950. There is a widely-held perception in Nepal that these are examples of "unequal treaties".
The Maoists' voice for a review of these pacts is louder than others. That the Koshi case has come to the forefront is viewed by some analysts as a blessing in disguise for Prachanda. It has gone some way in justifying his decision to skip the tradition of making New Delhi his first port of call.
King Birendra, who was killed in a palace assassination in 2001, had once publicly said that Nepal felt it was "cheated" by India on the Koshi project.
In Beijing, President Hu Jintao made a rare gesture and thanked Prachanda for attending the Olympics' closing ceremony just a week after being sworn in. "This [trip] demonstrates the attention Nepal attaches to relations with China," Xinhua news agency quoted him as saying on August 25.
Prime Minister Wen Jiabao added, "Ours is a model relationship between a big and smaller neighbor based on mutual respect and equality." On return to Kathmandu, Prachanda described his journey to the Chinese capital as "highly successful".
To allay purported Indian suspicions, he said the visit was event-specific and that his first "political" visit would take him to India shortly - and before he goes to address the United Nations General Assembly in New York at the end of this month.
"In fact, there was no need for him to offer these apologetic remarks [about visiting India]," Bhekh Bahadur Thapa, a former ambassador to India, told Asia Times Online. Thapa, who also had a stint as foreign minister, was twice ambassador to the United States.
An opinion poll conducted by a Nepali news agency this week showed that almost 40% of 3,067 respondents felt that Prachanda made the right move in traveling to China first. Only about 9% of readers thought he should have gone to India first. The remaining 41% of voters said it didn't matter.
It probably does matter to New Delhi. There seem to be people in Indian officialdom who felt slighted at Prachanda's decision to break the tradition of traveling to New Delhi to pay respects to the Indian establishment. They apparently do not realize that Nepal has abandoned more significant traditions, such as the monarchy and the Hindu religion.
Referring to Prachanda's choice of Beijing over New Delhi, one Times of India writer dubbed it a "snub" as the Indian invitation was sent much earlier. Retired colonel R Hariharan wrote on August 12, "If China's influence expands rapidly in Nepal, it holds serious portends for New Delhi's strategic security calculations."
Because India is a democracy, it does not lack divergent views on contemporary issues. This applies to the Indian policy on Nepal as well.
In the words of Dr S Chandrasekharan of the South Asia Analysis Group, "New Delhi needs to comprehend Prachanda's initiative for a parity in relations with India and China in a changing world. It is time India finally gives up this 'make-believe' special relations which never existed in the minds of the Nepalese administration".
Arvind R Deo, India's ambassador to Nepal in the late 1980s, has a slightly different opinion. In his view, although China shares a border with Nepal, it is more of a notional neighbor as high Himalayan peaks make economic interaction difficult. Geopolitical considerations continue to be relevant. Indian diplomacy therefore needs to be conducted with greater effectiveness, wrote Deo on August 29 in The Economic Times.
However, Deo also criticized public attempts to characterize Nepal as a client state of India and called Indian ambassador Rakesh Sood's conspicuous absence at the airport to see Prachanda off to China "ill-conceived".
King Prithvi Naryan Shaha, who laid the foundation for present-day Nepal in 1768, wanted his country to live at peace with India and China. Although that basic premise holds force today, tumultuous changes have taken place in both countries over the past 240 years. For example, the two nations - together with Pakistan - have become nuclear powers.
"We cannot live at peace even with India and China, unless we live at peace with the rest of the world," wrote the late Y N Khanal, a longstanding expert on Nepali diplomacy, in a book published in 2000.
(Adhikary is a Kathmandu-based journalist and commentator. This article is reproduced here courtesy www.atimes.com-- Ed.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)