Somewhat disconcerting is the fact that Nepal-India relations should be so low at the popular level here when every other analyst and commentator is dissecting current Nepali politics. This is especially so when Nepali policy is juxtaposed with India’s Nepal policy. Its concurrent impact on the increasing dependence on India of a Nepal that had for decades gradually reduced that calculatedly nudged dependence by our southern neighbor more than eager to inculcate the dependence provoked dejection. The uproar attempted here in reaction to the Indian army chief’s lumping Nepali defense with that of Bhutan, for all one knows, is designed to create that uproar. It should otherwise seemed to have been preferable on part of that Indian soldier to concede that a country which, in effect, is older than his has for centuries been defining its own security concerns successfully. What is unfortunate is that latter-day Nepali politics has so diluted this independent capability so as to make sure that pontification of policies for Nepal is so convenient from down south. After all we have been complaining so much and so loud in the media of Indian micro management. An attempt at macro management is hardly a surprise for us who have long expressed concern at Nepali political trends which have been aimed at systematically scuttling Nepali capabilities all-round.
What is disconcerting of late is the trend at which the Indian micro management is being nudged towards our security concerns and policies. Indian domestic politics may revile in its insulation at the projection to its home audience of the seeming growth of Indian prowess in the neighborhood. That Nepali politics has successfully helped in this assertion is what the growing Nepali awareness is deploring. For us who are concerned, more than the obviously calculated Indian strategy, it is the Nepali reactions that must be viewed with frustration. Nepali security policy is Nepal’s own. Our two giant neighbors and the fact that that Nepal borders the two has never been lost to not only Nepal but also other international actors. We retain the options in our security policy and are capable of assessing our strengths and weaknesses in the formulation of our security policy without the nudging of any outside factor. Our friends and neighbors are very aware of this. However, neither public debate at home or abroad nor excessive nudging from any fried or neighbor can contribute to the formulation of a national security policy is somewhat lost. Discussions on such are perhaps welcomed with glee by those who would want us to limit and expose these policies which would then render us, as a result, insecure. This awareness seems lacking in our domestic front. This is to be of national concern.
One expedient excuse for the public discourse was provided by none less than BIMSTEC’s subtle security digression. Nepal has been an eager participant in peaceful international strategic exercises as part, very much, of our security policy. Government has so confused the Indian military exercise and their offer for Nepali participation that we are still not aware whether we backed out of it or not and why. This is indicative enough that we have demonstrated insensitivities in even as sensitive a matter as strategic and security policy to that extent as to threaten the very security of state. While one is not surprised, though very concerned of course, of Indian insensitivities, it is the ham-handed nature of Nepali policy decisions in as sensitive a matter as national security that is alarming.
Login to add a comment