India: How will Maoist gains in Nepal shape two countries' ties?

Maoist leader Prachanda

The Maoist party had a surprisingly strong showing in recent elections. India is worried about the impact on its own Maoist rebel movement, the Naxalites.
By Mian Ridge
from the April 22, 2008 edition

The victory of Nepal's Maoists is as worrying for neighboring giant India as it was surprising. Following the former rebels' strong showing in general elections this month, government officials in New Delhi are wondering where the Maoists' victory leaves relations between the two countries. They are also concerned that the win may embolden India's own Maoist movement.
According to results posted Monday, Maoists won half of the 240 directly elected seats. Results for an additional 335 seats allotted to political parties based on the percentage are expected later in the week. Nepal's Maoists have said they want to scrap the Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed by Nepal and India in 1950. The treaty defines the countries' relationship, allowing Nepalis and Indians to travel freely across each other's borders. Until 1969, it also allowed India to keep security positions on Nepal's border with China.

(A map of the region can be found here.)

But it is the effect the win will have on Indian Maoists – a group known as Naxalites – that poses the greatest threat to India, reports Agence France-Presse. India's Naxalites say they are fighting for India's poor and landless – just as Nepal's Maoists did. India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, has previously identified the Naxalite movement as the country's single biggest security threat. The Naxalites had reportedly expanded to half of India's 28 states in 1996, prompting a military counteroffensive, said The Christian Science Monitor.

Daily News and Analysis, a Mumbai (Bombay) newspaper, reports the concerns of an official from India's Border Security Force (BSF) about possible future links between the two groups: No direct links between Nepali Maoists and Naxalites in India have been established. But what turn it will take in the near future, your guess is as good as mine. When you have a Marxist government in Nepal, there may possibly be sympathies with Maoists here. It is too early to say anything," said AK Mitra, BSF director general....

The Nepal Telegraph, noting that the Indian ambassador to Nepal, Shiva Shanker Mukherjee, had met with "Comrade" Prachanda – the nom de guerre of Nepal's Maoist leader, which means "fierce" or "terrible" – said that India was anxious that Nepal not scrap "unequal treaties" made between the two countries.

However, with the new earth shaking political developments in Nepal and the Maoists ready to form their own new government in a matter of month[s] if not days, a nervous looking Indian establishment is doing all it can in order to "calm down" the Maoists possible wrath that they are sure to exhibit against India the moment they step in the power corridors in Singh Durbar.
New Delhi is pretty concerned with the Maoists' presumed insistence on changing the 1950 and other unequal treaties signed with Nepal at different intervals of history.

Writing in The Times of India, columnist Swapan Dasgupta Deep said that India's attempts to foster diplomatic ties with Nepal's new leaders would be pointless. Maybe it is best to let bygones be bygones and allow the Maoists an opportunity to change their stripes. Unfortunately, if history is anything to go by, the prospects of those who capture power [by] professing Marxism-Leninism, transforming themselves instantly into honourable social-democrats, are extremely remote. Revolutionaries do see the light eventually, but not as long as the pioneers of the revolution are at the helm. Africa is littered with examples of radical nationalists who lost no time subverting the Constitution and turning their countries into one-party autocracies. Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe who "stole an election" last month followed a long tradition of self-professed Marxist-Leninists who believe 'once in power, always in power'. But other commentators were more hopeful of improved future relations between the two countries. India's Financial Express reported that India had expressed such a hope during Mr. Mukherjee's meeting with Prachanda .

And The Press Trust of India (PTI) news wire reported that the Maoists were in talks with the United States to lose their "terrorist" tag. Outlook, a leading Indian news magazine, noted that thus far, Prachanda had shown signs of being a sensible and cautious leader. So far the statements from Prachanda and others of his ilk have been sober and statesman-like, keeping a balanced approach between India and China. He recognises that developments in Nepal are tied to India and the two share a special relationship. Mukherjee got a call from Prachanda's office soon after the victory trend became clear, asking for a meeting. In the half-hour meeting, the Indian ambassador assured him of all support. Sources say the Maoists appreciate that India stuck with the democratic process and helped with material and money.

The most important task for India's foreign office is to help shape events in Nepal so that New Delhi's vital interests are secure and the open border does not become a security threat. [Nepal's] government has been "responsive" to Indian concerns about Pakistan using the Indo-Nepal border to send across troublemakers. China too is entrenched in the area. But in the end it is India's responsibility to "sanitise" the border, keep up surveillance, monitor the traffic, and build the infrastructure on its side. "You need cooperation from Nepal but you also need to do your own job more vigorously," a well-informed official said.

Indeed, many analysts expect the former rebels to be pragmatic in power, focusing on development. Nepal, one of the world's poorest countries, has suffered from decades of weak governance. The Maoists know that they will be unable to reduce poverty without the support of India, Nepal's main trading partner and the source of its fuel.

The weekly news magazine India Today noted that Prachanda had acknowledged the importance of a cordial relationship with Nepal's big neighbors. He had specifically mentioned the importance of friendly relations with India and China, the paper reported. Because the Maoists could ill-afford to antagonize Delhi, India should seize the opportunity to strengthen ties with Nepal.

Arvind Deo, a retired Indian diplomat, writing in the Economic Times also urged India to play a constructive role in Nepal's future development: India has some vital security concerns which need to be put across tactfully but unambiguously. In offering economic assistance for development, India must be generous without sacrificing any of its long-term interests. We must remember that it always pays to be courteous yet firm. Commentator Anuj Mishra, a Nepali journalist, writing on the Open Democracy blog predicted that India would have little to fear from Nepal's new leaders. However, the Maoists do have substantial limitations in their maneuverability, not least from regard for the wishes of the international community and of India. The former provides much of Nepal's development budget and the latter has not only enormous regional economic clout, but, more importantly was midwife of the April 2006 political process. Hence Nepal's move from Monarchy towards a liberal democratic republic is being led by a party which calls itself Maoist, and which it will not be, save in its name.