Before you read the article below remember; in the future your address might be changed and what is now could be something like: kathmandu, India Bhaktapur, India Lalitpur, India or Pokhara, India Nepal's relevance for India? The prominence given to Nepal in the report indicates that Nepal, after Bangladesh, is the key target of the GOI forward policy in the first decade of the 21st century. -By Dr. Upendra Gautam The Kathmandu Post Daily on 22 October, 2006 published a news story entitled "Nepal 8th most important nation for India." The Daily placed the news story in its lead. The news story was about a report prepared by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (IMEA). The IMEA report, as it was quoted, ranked Nepal 8th in the top ten countries vis-à-vis its significance with India's policy. In the regional geo-political context of South Asia, Bangladesh was placed certainly ahead of Nepal and ranked 7th while Bhutan, India's another significant Himalayan country, was way down in the ranking and occupied 67th position. According to the very news story, the IMEA has devised a 'Relevance for India' index that categorized countries on the basis of their political and strategic importance and their economic, commercial and cultural value to India on a 1-100 scale over the coming decade. The news story further stated that in the light of the "new" findings, India "has initiated homework for significant revision of its foreign policy vis-à-vis Nepal." The IMEA report apparently calculatedly leaked to the media appears to provide the much needed "legitimate" basis for the Government of India (GOI) to effect overt policy changes towards Nepal. Timing But the big question is why at this juncture of time the GOI wants to effect overt policy changes towards Nepal- a country having serious gaps in governance, a country characterized by profound political and economic instability, a country with demonstrated endemic inability to conduct its international affairs in accordance with due propriety and standards. The non-neutral media or media party to official Indian line both in Nepal and India have since long been systematically questioning Nepal's credentials to prosper as an independent nation. In the last several years, such questions have begun to be raised at a campaigning scale particularly after annexation of Sikkim into the Republic of India (ROI) in 1975. What is more the GOI is clearly not effecting overt policy changes towards Nepal because of any radical political and economic changes in India as the case is regularly made out to be. On the contrary, the revolutionary political changes which the GOI "facilitated" to introduce in Nepal have motivated the GOI to formulate a new policy "that suits the political changes in Nepal." It is astounding to note that instead of Nepal pursuing a foreign policy changes consistent with its domestic political revolution; it is the GOI which has initiated policy changes vis-à-vis Nepal in keeping with changes in Nepal's domestic politics! Planning Historically speaking, the GOI was never interested in allowing things to happen in a Nepali way. King Gyanendra played in the GOI hands by pushing the Nepali political leaders into Delhi embrace after he directly took over the reign of the administration. Long sought sustained renewal of role for the GOI in Nepali politics after the conclusion of Delhi agreement in 1951 was thus helped to get re-enacted in 2006. Now it is an open secret that the greatest beneficiary of political change in Nepal has been the GOI and its extended arms. By this very brutal fact what logically follows is GOI's excessive involvement in Nepali politics by proxy (through Indian political parties, media, business and research institution). This involvement is considered as an investment for a definable as well as comprehensive beneficial return over a period of time. So assigning 8th rank to Nepal in terms of its global political strategic significance for India implies a game-plan for a neighbor-less ROI in South-Eastern Himalayan Asia (at this stage excluding nuclear-power Pakistan); a political situation extensively akin to that of pre-1947 when it was British India in South Asia. Nepal's ascribed high relevance to the ROI of today seems therefore just a value in passing. It lures a section of the people who finds in "soaring economic growth" of India and its policy toward Nepal "an opportunity" and not a threat to Nepal's interests and future. This set of people has simply been dishonest in ignoring a historical fact which Druba Adhikary eloquently spells out in these words, "New Delhi has often found it expedient to push through crucial pacts when Nepal is run by a weak, a divided or a coalition government" (Nepal still in a state of flux, Asia Times Online Ltd., October 24, 2006). Rating IMEA's report has shown the light of the day at a time when Nepal faces unprecedented political transition. The prominence given to Nepal in the report indicates that Nepal, after Bangladesh, is the key target of the GOI forward policy in the first decade of the 21st century. In another sense this may also mean that the GOI considered Nepal an indomitable neighbor to such an extent that it now wants to tame or punish Nepal once and for all. India's Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran was unable to restrain his raw mind coming to his mouth when during an Indian Council of World Affairs talk in New Delhi on September 9, 2006 he uttered, "What we have been able to do with Bhutan we would certainly like to do with Nepal as well." The GOI wants Nepal to be its another Bhutan. And what is Bhutan in the GOI's order of relevance? It stands at 67th position. Assigning Nepal 8th rank in the GOI's country significance rating is a tactical part of GOI game plan to ultimately carry Nepal to the place where Bhutan is confined today. Be that as it may, it was in no way a casual remark that Narayan Man Bijukchhe, President of Nepal Workers and Peasants Party (NWPP), a partner of the ruling Seven Party Alliance (SPA), made while talking to journalists in Bhaktapur the other day. He said, "The key is stuck in Delhi." Bijukchhe was hinting at the political impasse that has externally been induced in the negotiation between the SPA government and the rebel force. (Dr Gautam is a freelance writer based in Kathmandu and can be reached at cmsug@cms.wlink.com.np) Our Nepal could be addressed as India and y'all have a chance to write Indian inder nationality. And whoever has a Last name Nepal or Nepali might as well be changed into something like Indian or hindusthani..... what do you have to say in this regards... your dear che. Viva La neuve revolucion