India’s duality?

BJP questions India’s Nepal policy


India’s Nepal policy is more guided by the appeasement of Maoists at the cost of pro-democracy forces ignoring its implications on India’s security, according to Bharatiya Janata Party leader and its Prime Ministerial candidate for the next general election, LK Advani.
Advani’s categorical disapproval of the government of India’s Nepal policy, comes in the background of interim parliament adopting the resolution declaring Nepal a Republic state, with the directive to the future constituent assembly to implement it. Advani said BJP was clearly in favour of preservation of Nepal as a Hindu Kingdom with constitutional monarchy.
He said the genuine aspirations of the people of Nepal like its Hindu identity and constitutional monarchy were suppressed by the rise of Maoists. “Maoism and democracy are a contradiction in terms. The two cannot go together. It is unfortunate that they have gained ascendancy in the polity of Nepal,” Advani said recently in a paper ‘Democracy and Conflict Resolution in Asia’ which he read out during a summit organised by Dainik Jagaran, a popular Hindi daily, last week.
Describing what has been happening in India’s north as ‘worrisome developments in Nepal’, Advani said what has been happening in Nepal have grave implications not only for Nepal, but also for India given the close nexus between Maoists on both sides of the border. “The Prime Minister (Man Mohan Singh) is right in characterising communist extremism or Naxalism as the biggest threat to India’s internal security. It is also a threat to our democracy.”
“Why then has the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government remained a silent onlooker with communists in India playing the role of a colluder, when constitutional monarchy was disbanded recently under the pressure of Maoists? The monarchy in Nepal was a symbol of its unique national identity and a source of its identity,” he continued.
This is first time that a major political party in India questions its own government’s policy that has virtually abandoned the twin pillar theory, after it mediated a deal between Nepal’s pro-democracy parties and the Maoists in November 2005. This also literally challenges the Indian government to clarify, if its approach on Nepali Maoists and the Indian Maoists are different. Singh had recently stated in the context of Naxalite problem that ‘the virus of terrorism’ needed to be eliminated for consolidation of democracy and developmental activities.
“Why did the Indian communists applaud when the identity of Nepal as a Hindu kingdom was erased even before the constituent assembly had discussed it? Would they demand that Pakistan or Bangladesh cease to be Islamic republics?” he asked. “The examples of Israel-Palestine, Afghanistan and Nepal raise two important questions: should India and other countries in Asia get entrapped in the western sponsored normative discourse on Asia’s political evolution, or should we imbibe from our traditional values and norms? The former path is likely to ensure that we become the playthings of external powers seeking to shoot guns off our shoulders,” said Advani.