Clash of powers By PURAN P BISTA Immaculately, Nepal appears to be heading towards the Cambodian-like conflict where killing was a part of the strategy to grab the power. China, along with the United States and the former Soviet Union, helped create Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Beijing, indeed, was the group's chief patron when it held power from 1975 through 1978 and killed more than 1.7 million people, a quarter of Cambodia's population, in the quest to create an agrarian Maoist utopia. Beijing looks eager to create a political space with a hope to abbreviate Delhi's political influence over Kath-mandu. For this several factors are compelling China to back the monarchy. India and Pakistan have resumed talks that consistently focus on trade and commerce. Both countries agreed to begin bus service between Srinagar and Muzzafarbad. Now both talk of moving beyond the Samjhauta express. This has certainly helped both the countries to come closer than ever before since both agreed to sort out their differences bilaterally. Secondly, the sacking of Khin Nyunt by General Than Shawe in October 2004 has changed Myanmar's equation with two giants in India's favor. Delhi's growing influence in Myanmar has cost Beijing's military ties with Yangon. China's dwindling influence over the Burmese military junta since the Khin Nyunt's ouster is seen as a setback to China's role in Myanmar. Beijing viewed Than Shawe's India visit in 2005 as a tilt towards Delhi's favor. In a sense, India's growing influence in Myanmar is limiting China's access to the Indian Ocean. In Nepal, the key players involved in resolving or escalating violence are China, India and the United States. China has backed the monarchy instead of the Maoists. China says the Maoists have tarnished the image of Mao. To show China's overt move, it has supplied weapons to a conflict-ridden country. On the other hand, India has backed the parliamentary forces and even asked the king to restore democracy if he wants Delhi resume the arms supply. That India has been behind every change of political guards in Nepal since 1951 cannot be ignored here. India's role in Nepal's internal affairs, no matter how the royalists and pro-Panchayat elite interpret it, has been politically pious. And that India could have sikkimized Nepal had it deemed necessary in 1950 is still a bitter pill to swallow. Similarly, had India not engaged Pakistan in East Pakistan in 1970 that led to the signing of Shimla agreement to liberate East Pakistanis and create Bangladesh, the Panchayat lords would have found no political space in Nepal now. The survival of Panchayat in Nepal was the outcome of the 1962 Indo-China war as well as the Indo-Pakistan wars over Kashmir. Since the breakdown of the cease-fire, the two warring factions have intensified violence. The international community wanted the king to join hands with the parliamentary forces. But the king's unwillingness to do so has forced the seven party alliance to reach an understanding with the Maoists. This illustrates that the Nepali players who crave for power have not learnt the political game of compromise yet. It has to do with the immaturity, incompetence and ineptitude of our political leadership rather than anything else. The institution of monarchy that represents obsolete ideology has pushed the conflict to the fore. The parliamentary forces fighting for the people's rights found the Maoists a new ally to reduce, if not eliminate, the size of the monarchy that has ruled this country with iron hands over 237-years. So long as the Nepalis are forced to walk with the baggage of constructive monarchy, there will be no solution to the political standoff because it is obvious that constructive monarchy is a costly affair. When cruelty is a means of sucking the poor, compromise does not come into the minds of the Nepali rulers. The Indian Maharajas of over four hundred princely states surrendered their power to the people during the partition in 1947. The majority of the Indian rulers were pious Hindus so it could happen. Unfortunately, our successive Maharajas believe in power that breeds poverty, inequality and, of course, illiteracy. Now they have gone to the extent of terming fellow Nepalis perpetrators, traitors and terrorists. Many civilians killed are innocent in the eyes of law but terrorists in the eyes of the state. We have not reached, though, to that point and counted the cost of the Maoist insurgency. Now China must realize what the institution of monarchy represents. The supply of arms to the royal regime as it did to Pol Pot in the 70s and to the Burmese junta in the late 80s will only escalate the conflict. Nepal is obviously neither Myanmar nor is it Cambodia. Seventy percent of the people living in Nepal have direct contacts with the Indians. And the age old ties between Indian and Nepali peoples cannot be snapped. Our ties are natural and inalienable. In a nutshell, the supply of weapons to the royal regime has certainly created an anti-China group in Nepal. And Nepal may become a new platform for the free Tibetan forces once democracy is restored. China cannot shut the mouth of the Tibetans living in Nepal who are fighting for the liberation of their country. Beijing must think twice before burning its fingers. http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=62872