Thursday , September 20 2018
Home / Political News / Editorial / What World View?

What World View?

editFast evolving international environs have analysts desperately pouring over the significance of day to day developments. A remarkable dissimilarity applied to the Nepali case is the virtual absence of predictions based on the actions of domestic actors who, in other countries are the prime movers of change. This is enough indication that we have lost for ourselves the domestic option of choice to influence the international community to serve our nation. What options Prime Minister K. P. Oli will exercise in course of his trip as newly ensconced prime minister to India thus becomes a factor of much deliberation. In actual fact, his politics and that of the state have reduced Nepali options to a bare minimum. It is not surprising in the least that Oli admits that he has nothing new in the agenda. There is talk of the pursuance of old agreements. This much is understandable. The conclusion here, rightly of course, is that Oli is on much stronger grounds than previously what with his resounding majority in parliament to make his domestic necessities a felt need in his neighborhood talks.
Even this, though, is subject to the extent to which his outstanding majority was engineered and by whom. Given the blatant extents of micro management that we all admit to, this factor will definitely prevail on Oli’s strength whichever way. In other words, much of the success of Oli’s trip this week will depend on Indian assessments of the global developments and their global viewpoint in as much as it demands adjustments in its relationships with the neighborhood, particularly in this case, with Nepal. There is, of course, growing realization that India’s neighborhood policy has not attracted her neighbors towards Delhi. There is also this realization that the other neighbor China has gained in the neighborhood on this account. This Sino-Indian rivalry for us in Nepal rather than being a boon for Nepali stability can turn bane if such competition is to result in the destabilization of our country. It is up to India and China, ultimately, thus, to opt for cooperation and not confrontation in Nepal. How much this realization is reflected in New Delhi will chart the course for the success of Oli’s India trip.
The onus thus lies on Delhi. Such a change in approach, and it will be a change if it is forthcoming, will be determined by the Indian world view which cannot but be an adjustment to the demands of international developments. As example, one is tempted to draw parallels in the Afghan situation. King Zahir Shah’s decision to ban his relations from electoral politics propelled Sardar Daud’s organizational coup which ultimately resulted in his own murder paving the way for the Soviet invasion and ultimately Western entry into the country. Indo-Pakistani rivalries in that erstwhile kingdom remain with both countries first facilitating then remaining mute on that foreign presence in the region. All this has been at the continuing cost of the Afghanis. Although there is some awareness in Delhi of the loss of international stature of its Nehruvian ‘third option’ role in Cold War international politics, the fact that continuing confrontation of the sorts remain at a time when choices are narrowing again into an ‘against us or for us’ situation would demand serious policy initiatives. More than K.P., eyes must therefore turn to his Indian counterpart to signal the change, if any. In this sense Oli’s trip can be significant indeed. After all, the Nepali side has been deprived of any meaningful initiative by his hosts as well.

Check Also

Nepal: Partying

The Nepali population has found the decade expensive. Our leaders have long run out of …