This lecture was given at the Swedish Association of International Affairs, Stockholm, 9th December, 2009
China’s rise is the decade’s most read news story. Google shows different maps to the Indians and Chinese. The media is full of headlines that “India is shining” and “China is rising”, suggesting that both are emerging as major world powers. Whether it is post-modernist spin, exploiting the power of words to shape reality or reality itself is a matter of discussion. Personally, I am interested in these headlines with a specific question, i.e. whether the rising and shining neighbors of Nepal are helping or hindering the country’s ongoing transformation toward democracy. In any case, what can be the democratic way forward for Nepal?
Nepal’s old political order has changed drastically since the Constituent Assembly (CA) elections in April 2008. The CA declared Nepal as a republic in May 28, 2008, and internal political weakness in the country provides opportunities for the external actors to intervene in its domestic affairs, where the state restructuring is at stake and political leaders are lacking in terms of meaningful thinking on foreign policy. Officially, both China and India insist that they do not interfere in the internal affairs of Nepal. At the same time, the Indian government openly implied that it did not like the idea of a Maoist-led government in Nepal and the Chinese leaders wonder why the Maoist government did not last long enough.
Some damaging agreements have been signed by Nepal with its neighbors during the times of fluid political transitions, e.g. the 1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty with India, on unequal terms, came about when Nepal first adhered to the principles of democracy, and the 1965 defense pact with India was concluded when Nepal’s democratic process was derailed with an undemocratic system. When Nepal reestablished its democratic system in 1990, India proposed a major agreement to close the loop-holes of the 1950 Treaty, aiming to strengthen its interest. Now, after the end of monarchy, China is calibrating a new Nepal policy, proposing to enhance the 1960 Treaty between the two countries. This makes India more involved in the internal politics of Nepal. In recent years, the Maoists are increasingly becoming active in Mahatma Gandhi’s India than in Mao’s China. The Indian government may blame Nepal’s Maoist supporting the Indian Maoists, but does not utter a word against China. Both China and India remain internally divided nations, perhaps more so than Nepal’s current situation.
My critical approach towards the Chinese and Indian foreign policies is not aimed at whipping up nationalistic sentiment in Nepal. Rather, it is about solidarity for democracy with the peoples in the respecting countries, as well as taking a stand from the vantage point of small powers against the powerful, distinguishing between just and unjust actions. It must be realized that China and India are the symbol of anti-colonial struggles and victims of colonial empires. A crucial message here is that the powerful states’ exercise of hegemony towards the small powers in the region is contrary to what they stand for during the time of their national independence.
Undoubtedly, China and India have been the largest contributors of Nepal’s development. The economic progress is being made in China and India in many areas, thanks to the internet technology. The bottom line by which to judge their economic development is that there is no trickle-down effect bridging the gap between the rich and the poor, contrary to what is often claimed to happen under free market capitalism. The gulf between the rich and the poor continues to widen in the one party communist state turned state-capitalist China, or in a multiparty centrally planned economy replaced by the capitalist republic of India. Both are nuclear powers having the world’s largest armies. But the people don’t eat nuclear weapons and the army does not grow food; and thousands of Indian farmers committed suicide after being driven to debt by crop failure.
Can the two neighbors’ system of governance be a model for Nepal, given that they have failed to make their internal transformation toward democracy and social justice? My answer to the question is negative, when looked from the critical approach. The Chinese-Indian policies toward Nepal’s democratization can be seen with and judged from different perspectives. Here, I am using the “apples and arms” and “guns and ambulances” metaphors.
Just as with the “Marpha apples”, Nepal’s quest for democracy, in my view, is constrained by north-south relations, ignoring Nepal’s own in-plantation of democracy. Currently, the “Chinese apples” are being sold in all Nepali cities, replacing the market of “Indian apples”. Marpha apples have grown as an institution in Nepal, but apple farmers in districts of Mustang Jomsom and Jumla, due to lack of motivation and transportation services, fail to compete with the Chinese and Indian apples in their own market.
Since India and China compete to secure their arms market in Nepal, “guns” metaphor is equivalent to ideological and material support to the neighbors’ respective allies in Nepal—alliances which change over time, until recently the now-defunct monarchy, and presently all major political parties are trying to please the neighbors—and in some cases helping to suppress the opposition. “Ambulances” signifies the pretension of economic aid, not necessarily the commitment to help Nepal’s democracy building. The two metaphors can be seen from and analyzed with the Sino-India security perception embedded in the geo-political competition and intertwined with which is economic aid, water resource development and arms sale to Nepal, as well as land-locked Nepal’s trade and transit related issues.
The military buildup is ongoing at the borders on both sides of the Himalayas by China and India despite decades of initiatives to normalize relations between the two countries. The Indian fighter airplanes are flying over the sky of Nepal, according to some Nepali news media. Nepal’s rulers are helpless and hesitant either to confirm or confront such flagrant violations of its sovereignty. The past record suggests that the China-India military competition and conflict has paved the way – if not played the role – pushing Nepal’s democracy backward nearly thirty years. In the 1950s and 1960s, China was pro-Soviet Union while India was counting on the US support against China during the 1962 war, but received none. Prior to the 1962 China-India war, Nepal’s first democratically elected government was replaced with the Panchayat regime by the then king Mahindra, lasting until 1990 and disrupting democratic development for nearly three decades. After the China-India war, there was a cozy relation between the regimes in Nepal and China. The Chinese supported the king’s rule. India was concerned about democracy after the dissolution of the first elected government in Nepal, but democracy was no longer important after the Chinese military assaults on India. Mahindra used short term tactics with the two neighbors for his regime’s survival. Notable among such tactics at the cost of the long-term national interest was the signing of the1965 defense pact with India, which limited Nepal’s right to buy arms from any country.
Mahindra’s successor Birendra bought some anti-aircraft guns from China in the late 1980s, which was opposed by India, blockading Nepal nearly one year (1989-1990).The Panchayat regime ended in 1990 as a result of the internal demand for democracy, coinciding with arms import from China. India supported Nepal’s democratic movement in 1990 for its own interest, but derailed the democratic development being involved in the frequent change of governments in Nepal. The political leadership failed practicing democracy, the Maoist war 1996-2005 was a cause as well as consequence of it. Nepal’s leaders served the interest of the neighbors to remain in power.
Nearly thirty million people of Nepal have become a large and safe market for Chinese apples, garments and electronic equipment. Nepal has also been a market as well as a resource for the Indian economy, ranging from water resource to the outsourcing of the Gorkha army. Given the land-locked position of Nepal, the trade and transit situation to and from India have had significant impacts on the economic as well as democratic development. On the one hand, there exists a special regime of border relations between Nepal and India, which allow free entry and exit to the citizens of the two countries. On the other hand, there is a tacit regime of Nepal’s trade and transit, including the right of access to the sea through India. Nepal’s trade and transit treaties need to be renegotiated with India every five years, which usually leads to increased demands from India.
Nepal’s political parties are constantly making and breaking alliances for the purpose of political appointments and/or forming the government. Major political parties perceive India’s role as crucial and they get advantage by being closer to the Southern neighbor. China is trying to re-calibrate a new Nepal policy exntending supports to Nepal’s Maoists, who seem to have good working relation with the Indian government. Nepal’s internal institutional capacity in large part will determine how the external challenges can be met. An alternative democratic way forward for Nepal is the Scandinavian model. There are two reasons: The first reason is that Scandinavian democracies are comparatively successful in bridging the gap between the rich and the poor; and the second reason is that Nepal’s geo-political situation is somewhat similar to Scandinavia’s, when looked from the point of view of the inter-war and post-WW II periods. Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland faced various difficult situations during the war period, and the lesson to learn for Nepal’s political leadership is the Scandinavian strategies for their independence during the World Wars, and their quest for peace, democracy and social justice. Norway is playing a behind-the-scene role by working with group of ambassadors in Nepal to bring the parties to a common platform in order to assist the peace process and democracy building. However, if the Scandinavians also use the “guns and ambulance” policy towards Nepal— as China, India and others do—finding a way to democracy would be difficult, if not impossible.
