A
Nepali soldier on a busy Kathmandu Road: Below Left: A King's
supporter
India Reviewing
Sanctions Against Nepal After China, Pakistan Make Inroads
By
Arun Rajnath
NEW
DELHI, February 27: India is getting increasingly concerned and
apprehensive about “designs” of Pakistan and China
in Nepal, after New Delhi cut off military aid to the Kingdom,
a senior government official confirmed to the South Asia Tribune.
This
Indian view coincided with some damage control efforts begun by
New Delhi when the Indian Ambassador in Kathmandu, Shiv Shanker
Mukherjee, met the Vice President of the Council of Ministers,
Dr. Tulsi Giri on Thursday. “They discussed matters of mutual
interest and bilateral issues, including suspension of military
aid,” the senior official said.
New
Delhi is disturbed because all Indian efforts to tame the King
have failed so far and the King’s hold is gradually strengthening,
especially on the issue of Maoist forces, as civilians have also
reportedly joined hands with the Royal Nepal Army (RNA) against
them.
Officials
try to appear confident that Pakistan would not be able to directly
intervene in the affairs of Nepal, yet they fear that Islamabad
could accelerate covert anti-India operations with Nepal as the
base.
But
Nepal was already moving fast to seek support from China and King
Gyanendra has already closed down three Tibetan refugee offices
in Kathmandu in a gesture that would have immensely pleased Beijing.
Indian
Home Ministry sources confirmed that about 2000 Tibetan refugees
had moved to India from Nepal after the Nepali crackdown on Tibetans
so far. Most of them have reached their headquarters in exile,
located at Himachal Pradesh.
Informed
government sources told the South Asia Tribune: “We
know that Pakistan is eager to take advantage of India’s
absence. Despite suspended military aid to Nepal, we are in constant
touch with the Nepalese authorities.
“The
conditions in the sub-continent have substantially changed with
the increased interaction between India and Pakistan. It will
not be easy for President Musharraf to support Nepal defying India.
Pakistan is an ally of the international anti-terrorism movement
and the US itself is against King’s abrogation of democracy.
In this case, I do not think that President Musharraf or any SAARC
country would try do anything,” the official said.
“But,
of course, Pakistan can now more easily utilize its agents in
Nepal to fan anti-India feelings. We have received reports that
due to the suspension of arms supply, Nepali people are feeling
more insecure because they have to face the direct onslaughts
of the Maoist forces in the villages,” the official said.
This
statement was interpreted by analysts as a sign that India may
be thinking of reviewing its decision to suspend “all military
assistance” to the King.
The
Government is also apprehensive about China’s possible and
increased role in Nepal in the given situation. Due to Indian
sanctions against Nepal, the civil supplies have also been blocked.
Essential commodities are being unloaded in the border areas adjacent
to Nepali districts.
A
top government official said: “Civil supplies from India
to Nepal have been blocked, partly due to Maoists’ threat,
and partly due to sanctions against Nepal. But we know that China
has begun civil supplies to the King.”
When
asked about possibility of China providing military aid, the official
said: “Of course! Why not? They need arms, and we have already
supplied plenty of them. In fact, Nepal does not need arms immediately,
and they have not asked for them either. But to show India that
they do not need our help as far as the security issue is concerned,
they can request China to supply arms. And here our policies would
be defeated.”
Strategic
expert and retired Lt. General BS Malik corroborated this view.
He told the South Asia Tribune: “China would not
have any problem in supplying arms to be used against the Maoist
forces, as they have nothing to do with these ultras. The Chinese
are moving towards the market economy and they have no time worry
about their past. They have serious reservations instead against
these ultras identifying themselves with the name of Chairman
Mao.”
About
Pakistan’s possible involvement in Nepal, Gen. Malik said:
“The situation has changed now. It is true that Nepal has
been the center of the ISI activities in this region. After 9/11,
things have become difficult for Pakistan. But how can you stop
a country from waging a proxy war?”
Meanwhile
on the issue of a formal announcement by India of stalling arms
supplies to Nepal, inter-ministerial infighting has begun. Sources
say that the issue was neither discussed nor decided in the Cabinet
or the Cabinet Committee on Security. The Foreign Ministry decided
to make the announcement on its own, unilaterally.
Foreign
Office spokesman, Navtej Sarna deliberately evaded questions E-mailed
to him on this subject by the South Asia Tribune. The
written queries were sent to Mr. Sarna on the advice of his subordinate
Under Secretary (External Publicity Division), Vipul. After receiving
the E-mail, Vipul telephoned this correspondent and saidMr. Sarna
would not answer the written queries. Sarna was not available
personally.
Sarna's
reluctance had more to do with the apparent rethinking going on
within the policy-making circles as King Gyanendra had gone on
a diplomatic offensive against the Indians while consolidating
his hold domestically. The Indian planners were looking busy trying
to repair the damage and the meeting between the Indian Ambassador
Shiv Shanker Mukherjee with Dr Tulsi Giri in Kathmandu was seen
as a part of the effort. “It was an effort to mollify him,”
one official conceded.
King
Gyanendra has been openly criticizing India for suspension of
the military aid. According to the nepalnews.com, the King said
on Thursday: “Are they telling us that we should not fight
against terrorism, that we should put our democracy into jeopardy?
When we have chosen to uphold democracy and fight against terrorism,
why are they shying away from helping us? I can see one thing
clearly emerging out of it. Our objectives are the same. We are
going to meet somewhere. But we have chosen may be different paths
in attaining that objective.”
The
King added: “We expect our friends to understand that we
are moving in that path. We should not be surprised that some
of our friends have expressed dissatisfaction with our move but
some of our friends have welcomed it. They must say what they
must say and we must do what we must do. We will no more tolerate
terrorism and we want that political parties, too, should come
up with clear views on this issue.”
