http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print.html?path=HL0601/S00095.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nepal's China-Card Monday, 16 January 2006 'A favorite old formula of autocrats for playing China against India' By Siddhi B. Ranjitkar Why could Nepalese autocrats play a China-card effectively in the regional politics for continuing their unjust and undemocratic regime? Whenever Nepal had democratically elected governments, the Chinese autocrats lost the partners in autocratic governance giving way to the democratic countries such as India, the US, the UK and other European democratic governments to have more influence on the elected governments in Nepal than the Chinese Government. Naturally, often the Chinese Autocratic Proletarian Government got sidelined, and found ignored by elected governments in Nepal. The elected governments in Nepal tended to loosen their control over the Tibetan refugees in Nepal, and let them freely travel and engage in their activities for freedom in Tibet. Hence, the Chinese autocratic proletarian government always found democracy in Nepal as a threat to their oppressive rule in Tibet. Whenever the Nepalese autocrats played the China-card, the first victims were the Tibetans fighting for freedom from the autocratic rule of the Chinese proletarian leaders, and another victim, of course, was the democracy in Nepal. This was true in 1960 when the former king Mahendra played the China-card to kill the infant democracy, and in 2005 when the current king Gyanendra played the China-card to throttle the flourishing democracy. After the unification of small kingdoms and principalities into a present-day Nepal, King Prithvi Narayan Shah said, "Nepal is a yam sandwiched between two large stones."[1] He was referring to India to the South and China to the North as two large stones, and Nepal as a yam in between them. He left his advice to his future generations to follow the policy of not aligning with only one side - either to the north or to the south in other words to achieve a good balance between them. In balancing between the two powerful countries - one to the south and another to the north, the rulers of Nepal had sometimes played one against another when the situation favorable to do so arose. For example, in 1960s, king Mahendra played a China-card effectively for suppressing the opposition political activities on the borders with India. King Mahendra told the then-Indian Ambassador Shriman Narayan "Your Excellency, I am obliged for the sincere steps you have taken to bring about peace on our southern border. There are still a few stray cases of trespasses and conflicts here and there. But I do realize that it is not very easy to control such incidents completely along the long Indo-Nepal border of several hundred miles. I am sure your honest efforts would continue. On my part, I and my government have now decided to request China to abandon the eastern sector of the East-West Highway and initiate a fresh survey for another road somewhere in the middle regions of Nepal."[2] At that time, Indian authorities did not want Chinese closer to Indian borders. Indian Ambassador, Shriman Narayan replied, "I personally visited the Indo-Nepal border quite extensively and asked the district authorities to restrain effectively the Nepalese citizens from indulging in undesirable activities against the king and his government from the Indian soil. I also met a number of workers of the Nepali Congress in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Bengal and plainly told them that India would no longer allow them to operate against the friendly kingdom."[3] King Mahendra suppressed the voices of Tibetan refugees in Nepal, and stopped any political activities of them from Nepal against he Peoples' Republic of China in 1960s. Later on, King Birendra also eliminated the Khampa rebels fighting against the Chinese rule in Tibet from the northern border of Nepal in 1970s. Before taking over the executive power on February 1, 2005, King Gyanendra shut down the offices of Representatives of Dalai Lama and of Tibetan Refugees in Nepal. Obviously, this was done to keep the Chinese Government happy. The king was sure that India and the western countries would not support his actions of usurping the power from the elected government. So, he wanted to keep at least one neighbor happy and in his favor. Then came the February-1 putsch staged by King Gyanendra keeping the whole country in darkness for a whole week by snapping communication lines and closing the media. Describing it as an internal matter, Beijing refrained from taking any stand on the King Gyanendra’s February-1 takeover. Thus, China has taken a friendly attitude toward the king in Nepal. India, the US, the UK and the international community as a whole condemned the putsch and suspended the military supplies to the Royal Nepalese Army. The king could not convince the international community that his army would not use the arms and ammunition against the people fighting for fundamental human rights and democracy in the country. So, the embargo remained. Pursuant to the Nepal-India Treaty of 1950, Nepal needs to consult with India to import arms and ammunition from the third party country. At that time, Nepal and India had this treaty done to cater the needs for countering the threat from the People's Republic of China that had captured Tibet by force in 1949. Pursuant to this treaty, India could halt or check any arms and ammunition passing through its territory to Nepal. India did not have any means to check the arms supply to Nepal by China if they came from China to Nepal through Tibet.