Never-ending speculation about the fate of army chief Rookmangud Katawal came to an end following the Maoists’ unilateral decision to sack him (only to be reinstated by the president). The Maoists went ahead and did what they had decided to do anyways, despite stern warnings from all quarters – coalition partners, the main opposition party Nepali Congress, and most importantly, India that had provided the Maoists leaders safe haven during the decade-long insurgency.The NC, which not a very long ago, along with the Maoists chided the army for being a feudal institution, came out openly against the sacking of the army chief. All of a sudden, the NC, which had once agreed with the Maoists for the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) integration, is rooting for the man that is against the PLA merger. Why change of heart and why now?
With the Maoists’ increasing dominance in Nepali politics and their reluctance to abandon violence, the NC clearly saw doomsday coming. Unable to stand the Maoists’ wrath on its own, it found a perfect shield in Katawal. But the question that baffles many is: why did India decide to back the army to which it had once refused to supply arms? How does it look on the part of the world´s largest democracy when it has to covertly back an army general of a neighboring country to correct its foreign policy failures?India likes to blame the victims – Nepalis – for the current mess in Nepal and call it Nepal’s internal affair. But for Nepalis, who very well know where the top-rung Maoists leaders were during the decade-long insurgency (the Maoist leaders have themselves time and again acknowledged the Indian hospitality) and who catapulted insurgents from jungle to the corridors of Singha Durbar, sharing the burden of someone else’s faults has not been fun.
It is not the increasing dominance of the Maoist party in Nepali politics but its willingness to become the mentee of China that forced India to back Katawal. India had no option but to back Katawal because the political parties of yesteryears neither have the motivation, nor the muscle power to wrestle with the Maoists at this point in time. The backing of Katawal is another addition to the list of foreign policy failures of India but the cost of remaining a lame spectator would be even greater in terms of India’s national security interests.While the political parties of yesteryears are looking up to India to rescue them, for India, it is all about “safe landing” in Nepal. So, in the days ahead, the real confrontation will be between the Maoists and India, obviously through the Nepal Army and the coalition that India has put together. Will India be able to beat the Maoists on their home turf? It is an uphill battle.
How long will the Indian-sponsored coalition last? Not very long. The need for coalition has to come from within the parties for it to last. There has to be a shared goal.This is precisely why the SPAM alliance did not last long. The Maoists were clear about why they wanted to be a part of the current framework and what they wanted out of it, whereas the other political parties were clueless about what they would do if they failed to defeat the Maoists in the CA election. Basically, they had no clue about what they would do after the country was declared a republic. They were all convinced that the Maoist party will stick to the multi-party democratic framework and will not dare to act against India’s dictate. The coalition fell apart simply because there was disconnect between the end goal of the Maoists and other parties. For the Maoists, it was always about capturing the state, which should be clear to all those deniers out there. It was never about reintegration, because that simply means accepting the existing order against which the Maoists wedged the People’s War.
India, for its national security interest, will try to maintain political stability in Nepal through this coalition, but the costs of doing that will be several times higher than what it would have taken for Indians to contain the Maoists insurgency. What will it take for this coalition to work for a decent period? Basically, three things: (1) huge amount of money on the table that will produce visible changes in terms of both immediate needs (solving energy crisis – electricity and fuel shortages) and long-term development (this will act as the proverbial carrot and help change peoples’ perception about the dubious game that India plays in Nepal) (2) Logistical support to security forces and heavy security presence on the southern side of the border (will act as the proverbial stick and force Maoists to renegotiate terms and condition of the peace process) (3) Full-time mentoring to the politicians. A detailed short-term plan to contain the Maoists and long-term plan to weaken them should be crafted and handed over to the politicians and security forces.
In the meantime, another framework should be developed and force the Maoists to agree to it. The current peace process is not working. It is producing everything but peace and stability. Hence, salvaging the process is not the issue at hand. The process needs to be re-engineered from the word go. Why? Because it is now evident beyond any refute that the strategic end goals for the negotiating parties are diametrically opposite. One wants a single-party communist republic; the others want a vibrant democratic polity. We need to decide here what each of us wants Nepal to become. If we want a liberal multi-party set up, then there´s a huge problem. If we want a single party communist republic, then there´s the Maoist path.The twelve-point agreement has outlived its utility. It has been producing everything but peace and political stability. Now we need to formulate a completely new agreement where the vision, the strategic end-state, is common to all parties. This is the starting point – agreement on an end-goal – from which all tactical steps and processes must evolve.
Showing posts with label double standards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label double standards. Show all posts
Monday, May 11, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Strategic Intent
Annie Lowrey of Foreign Policy, the award-winning magazine of global politics, economics, and ideas founded by Samuel Huntington and Warren Demian Manshel lists Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s government as one of the five governments worldwide that deserves to fail. One of the major charges against him is that he has been unable to maintain political stability and contain violence. Lowrey asserts, “Prachanda must maintain political stability and avoid any violence at all costs – or Nepal risks catastrophe.”
Lowrey correctly identifies what needs to be done in order to avert catastrophe, which in my view is not that difficult, but whether or not Prime Minister Dahal is doing enough to maintain political stability and contain violence is the most important question. Is Lowrey overreacting? No! Somalia and Afghanistan are excellent examples that showcase what political instability and violence can do to a nation.
Some of us think that political instability and violence are part of a package that a nation trying to take a giant leap has to live with for a while. But how long should that period be allowed to exist? The shorter, the better. And, it really depends upon the ability of the political leadership of the country in question to understand what political instability and violence can do to the overall economy and social fabric. For example, in poor landlocked Botswana, a unique form of democracy combining British parliamentary ideas with African traditions has been functioning well since the 1960s. A free press and a lively political system have developed. One of the many reasons why Botswana is a functional democracy in a largely dysfunctional continent is because the statesmen that took over were mindful of the importance of political stability and law and order in the country. On the contrary, seemingly endless ethnic conflicts in Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi, Nigeria, Chad, Angola, Ethiopia, and the Congo have cost many millions and made these countries highly unstable. One of the major reasons behind political instability in these countries is that the politicians deliberately invoke "ethnic action and nationalism", for ulterior motives, to achieve political and economic objectives. When that happens conflict takes shape of a vicious circle with no end in sight making political instability a norm rather than an exception.
We have started to see similar signs in Nepal too. While lawlessness continues, politicians talk as if a peaceful democratic transition can be taken for granted. But it cannot. Failure to combat lawlessness and instability undermines a country´s stock of ´social´ capital - that is, the relations of inter-group solidarity and cohesion which allow negotiation, compromise, and agreement between opposing factions. In Nepal, the consequence of the failure to stem the vortex of violence and lawlessness is that the country is fragmenting into an archipelago of competing power factions. Unless these centrifugal forces are contained, the country will drift further and further from a social compact.
The question, however, in the case of Nepal is whether or not Dahal is interested in maintaining political stability and containing violence? If the answer is yes, why is political instability and violence increasing with each passing day?Anyone following Nepali politics closely knows very well that the Maoists want more political violence and chaos—not less. If you look at the Maoists movement, it becomes evident that as the frequency and magnitude of their violent activities increased, so did their level of recognition and their domination over the existing political parties and the state got greater. For the Maoists, violence pays and as long as they benefit politically from it, they are not going to abandon violence. It’s a no-brainer. The chief ideologue of the Maoist movement, Baburam Bhattarai, has openly admitted that violence and chaos benefits his party politically. If violence did not matter and benefit them politically, they would not have formed the Young Communist League (YCL).
Unlike visionary statesmen such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Nelson Mandela, who followed acts of destruction with greater acts of construction, Nepali Maoists ideologues’ quench for destruction seems to have no boundary. Nehru and Mandela fought tirelessly against oppression and injustices, but after coming to power, they spent many years preserving the systems that their predecessors had put in place. Once in power, Mandela, who had approved radical and violent resistance to apartheid, reached out to White’s to create a multicultural South Africa. Maybe, it is absurd to compare Bhattarai – who thinks destruction alone will pave the way for construction – with Nehru, who preserved existing institutions, which he rightly thought was necessary to build a modern democratic state. The point I am trying to make here is that people without violent streaks have proved to be more constructive in world history. If destruction was the only way towards construction, Somalia and Afghanistan by now would have been the most prosperous state on the face of this earth.It is time that we, Nepalis, realize that putting too much faith on politicians will only result in disappointment.
The moderates within the society need to come out before it is too late. We need to force the state to address the genuine grievances of ethnic minorities and maintain law and order. It is not the ordinary Nepali citizens who are blocking the emancipation of ethnic groups. It is the ruling coalition’s largest partner which is not able to fulfill the promises that it made on its way to get where they are today. Why should an ordinary Nepali struggling to remain afloat pay the price for someone else’s wayward political ambitions?
Lowrey correctly identifies what needs to be done in order to avert catastrophe, which in my view is not that difficult, but whether or not Prime Minister Dahal is doing enough to maintain political stability and contain violence is the most important question. Is Lowrey overreacting? No! Somalia and Afghanistan are excellent examples that showcase what political instability and violence can do to a nation.
Some of us think that political instability and violence are part of a package that a nation trying to take a giant leap has to live with for a while. But how long should that period be allowed to exist? The shorter, the better. And, it really depends upon the ability of the political leadership of the country in question to understand what political instability and violence can do to the overall economy and social fabric. For example, in poor landlocked Botswana, a unique form of democracy combining British parliamentary ideas with African traditions has been functioning well since the 1960s. A free press and a lively political system have developed. One of the many reasons why Botswana is a functional democracy in a largely dysfunctional continent is because the statesmen that took over were mindful of the importance of political stability and law and order in the country. On the contrary, seemingly endless ethnic conflicts in Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi, Nigeria, Chad, Angola, Ethiopia, and the Congo have cost many millions and made these countries highly unstable. One of the major reasons behind political instability in these countries is that the politicians deliberately invoke "ethnic action and nationalism", for ulterior motives, to achieve political and economic objectives. When that happens conflict takes shape of a vicious circle with no end in sight making political instability a norm rather than an exception.
We have started to see similar signs in Nepal too. While lawlessness continues, politicians talk as if a peaceful democratic transition can be taken for granted. But it cannot. Failure to combat lawlessness and instability undermines a country´s stock of ´social´ capital - that is, the relations of inter-group solidarity and cohesion which allow negotiation, compromise, and agreement between opposing factions. In Nepal, the consequence of the failure to stem the vortex of violence and lawlessness is that the country is fragmenting into an archipelago of competing power factions. Unless these centrifugal forces are contained, the country will drift further and further from a social compact.
The question, however, in the case of Nepal is whether or not Dahal is interested in maintaining political stability and containing violence? If the answer is yes, why is political instability and violence increasing with each passing day?Anyone following Nepali politics closely knows very well that the Maoists want more political violence and chaos—not less. If you look at the Maoists movement, it becomes evident that as the frequency and magnitude of their violent activities increased, so did their level of recognition and their domination over the existing political parties and the state got greater. For the Maoists, violence pays and as long as they benefit politically from it, they are not going to abandon violence. It’s a no-brainer. The chief ideologue of the Maoist movement, Baburam Bhattarai, has openly admitted that violence and chaos benefits his party politically. If violence did not matter and benefit them politically, they would not have formed the Young Communist League (YCL).
Unlike visionary statesmen such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Nelson Mandela, who followed acts of destruction with greater acts of construction, Nepali Maoists ideologues’ quench for destruction seems to have no boundary. Nehru and Mandela fought tirelessly against oppression and injustices, but after coming to power, they spent many years preserving the systems that their predecessors had put in place. Once in power, Mandela, who had approved radical and violent resistance to apartheid, reached out to White’s to create a multicultural South Africa. Maybe, it is absurd to compare Bhattarai – who thinks destruction alone will pave the way for construction – with Nehru, who preserved existing institutions, which he rightly thought was necessary to build a modern democratic state. The point I am trying to make here is that people without violent streaks have proved to be more constructive in world history. If destruction was the only way towards construction, Somalia and Afghanistan by now would have been the most prosperous state on the face of this earth.It is time that we, Nepalis, realize that putting too much faith on politicians will only result in disappointment.
The moderates within the society need to come out before it is too late. We need to force the state to address the genuine grievances of ethnic minorities and maintain law and order. It is not the ordinary Nepali citizens who are blocking the emancipation of ethnic groups. It is the ruling coalition’s largest partner which is not able to fulfill the promises that it made on its way to get where they are today. Why should an ordinary Nepali struggling to remain afloat pay the price for someone else’s wayward political ambitions?
Monday, December 15, 2008
Practice what you preach
Last month's terrorist attacks in Mumbai shocked everyone. Nearly two hundred innocent men and women lost their precious lives and many more were injured. In anger over Mumbai attacks, while the nation was grieving the loss, Indian media and politicians, as usual, tirelessly vilified and pointed the finger at Pakistan. Blaming the usual suspect, Pakistan, began even before evidences were gathered and the lone surviving terrorist was interrogated.
Although the notoriety of Pakistan's Intelligence Agency, ISI in providing aid and comfort to Islamofascists that want to inflict harm on India cannot be denied based on its past activities, India should also take responsibility for its own security lapses and failure to address issues that are fuelling the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the Indian subcontinent. Is it because of India's rigid posture on Kashmiri issues or is it due to India's inability to lift the status of millions of Muslims that are at the bottom of the pyramid, to whom, the prosperity of the last two decades has failed to bring about any real changes? What actually is it that is luring young men and women in Indian subcontinent towards radical Islam?
By attacking landmarks in the financial capital of India, Mumbai, jihadist juggernauts wanted to do two things: expose India's vulnerabilities and slow down India's economic progress. The recent terrorist attacks in Indian subcontinent also signal shift in venue of global terrorism. Lately, South Asia has become a focal point for terrorism directed against the western nations. By targeting westerners in Mumbai, Islamic radicals wanted to send a message about shift in venue for holy jihad. It clearly shows how the trends in terrorism continue to shift from the Middle East to South Asia. With Afghanistan slipping into chaos and Nepal on freefall, jihadists have more than needed space to operate in South Asia. If terrorism is to be wiped out from South Asia, along with Pakistan, India too, has substantial homework to do.
First and foremost, India should work on its definition of “terrorism.” For India, groups that are waging armed struggle for the liberation of Kashmir from Pakistani soil are terrorists, and it wants Pakistani government to go after them, but when it comes to India's turn to act, it simply looks the other way. While India blames Pakistan for providing aid and comfort to the anti-Indian elements, India's own record is not as clean as it wants others to believe. It is an open secret about where the Maoists ideologues, who raised arms against the state, and whom Indian government unilaterally branded as terrorists lived for the most part of the decade long insurgency. The Maoists movement that brought Nepal to its knees would not have been succeeded without India's generosity. India not only provided the Maoists a safe heaven to operate, but also forced democratic forces to bed with them, whose ugly repercussions are unfolding slowly.
India's soft corner for those that raise arms against Nepali state did not end with its generosity towards the Maoists. It continues to provide safe heaven to armed secessionist groups that want to disintegrate Nepal. How is Pakistan's support to Jihadists that want to free Kashmir different from India's turning blind eyes on groups that have raised arms to seek secession? Armed struggle in Nepal will not survive without Indian benevolence.
What India as a nation should understand is that, it can only progress the way it wants to, when South Asia as a regions is, stable and peaceful. It cannot and will not remain insulated from the pouring in of negative externalities if its neighbors fail. It should, thus, stop providing safe heaven to groups that raise arms against its neighbors. Only then, India will have moral authority to ask Pakistan to go after the groups that carry out anti-Indian activities in Pakistani soil.
If India continues to provide safe heaven to the armed groups that raise arms against Nepal, armed struggle in Nepal will never wane. Bunch of incompetent but ambitious individuals that lack patience and caliber to win the hearts and mind of Nepali people through peaceful democratic means will keep on waging wars in the name of fighting oppression. Looking at honeymoon period of the Maoist government, it becomes evident that rhetoric alone is not enough to bring changes. For change to come, the rulers should have a vision and competence. Is India ready to be held accountable, if the so called revolutionaries, to whom it provides safe heaven, fail to deliver, like the Maoists, and bring about positive changes?
The Maoists in Nepal had an excellent opportunity bring about changes. There was no need to create rogue institution like Young Communist League (YCL). They had already created a political space for themselves. The defeat of stalwarts of the United Marxist Leninist Party (UML) at the hands of the obscure Maoists figures clearly showed that the UML's grassroots operatives had mass-migrated to the Maoists Party. Instead of trying to capitalize their gains and focusing on providing services to the people, the Maoists remained glued to their red book, which states terror as a method social control.
With the honeymoon period over, the excitement generated by Maoists' revolution has dissipated. With waning of euphoria, Puspa Kamal Dahal finds himself under fire. His next step? If worst comes, step down and wreck havoc till the next government is overwhelmed. The Nepali politics is sure to get confrontational in days to come. The way things are unfolding, it appears that, we will once again witness a bloody conflict, whereby the very same people who declared the Maoists terrorists will be at the helm of affairs, and the Maoists at offensive. Who gains from this, if this is to really happen? Not Nepali people for sure!
India, when it comes to its own security, aggressively calls for wiping out groups that act against India's national security, but when it is India's turn to reciprocate, its record has been pretty dismal. If nothing, what India can and should learn from the failure of the Maoist government in Nepal is that, there are tons of incompetent and ambitious politicians in Nepal, who are ready to wage war against the state. How do you identify true revolutionaries that can change the face of Nation from phonies, who pose as revolutionaries and wage wars against the state to forward their political agendas? And, will the justification for armed struggle ever get over if a neighbor keeps on rewarding armed insurgencies targeted at its neighbor?
There will always be complaints about injustice caused by the state. No country has ever been fully able to satisfy its citizens. But that cannot simply be the reason for armed struggle. India should force various armed groups that are waging wars against its neighbor to shut down their shops if it really wants Pakistan to go after jihadists that are waging holy war against India.
India cannot win the war against terrorism on its own. If it really wants to win this war, it has to stop the blame game and cooperate with its neighbors.
Although the notoriety of Pakistan's Intelligence Agency, ISI in providing aid and comfort to Islamofascists that want to inflict harm on India cannot be denied based on its past activities, India should also take responsibility for its own security lapses and failure to address issues that are fuelling the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the Indian subcontinent. Is it because of India's rigid posture on Kashmiri issues or is it due to India's inability to lift the status of millions of Muslims that are at the bottom of the pyramid, to whom, the prosperity of the last two decades has failed to bring about any real changes? What actually is it that is luring young men and women in Indian subcontinent towards radical Islam?
By attacking landmarks in the financial capital of India, Mumbai, jihadist juggernauts wanted to do two things: expose India's vulnerabilities and slow down India's economic progress. The recent terrorist attacks in Indian subcontinent also signal shift in venue of global terrorism. Lately, South Asia has become a focal point for terrorism directed against the western nations. By targeting westerners in Mumbai, Islamic radicals wanted to send a message about shift in venue for holy jihad. It clearly shows how the trends in terrorism continue to shift from the Middle East to South Asia. With Afghanistan slipping into chaos and Nepal on freefall, jihadists have more than needed space to operate in South Asia. If terrorism is to be wiped out from South Asia, along with Pakistan, India too, has substantial homework to do.
First and foremost, India should work on its definition of “terrorism.” For India, groups that are waging armed struggle for the liberation of Kashmir from Pakistani soil are terrorists, and it wants Pakistani government to go after them, but when it comes to India's turn to act, it simply looks the other way. While India blames Pakistan for providing aid and comfort to the anti-Indian elements, India's own record is not as clean as it wants others to believe. It is an open secret about where the Maoists ideologues, who raised arms against the state, and whom Indian government unilaterally branded as terrorists lived for the most part of the decade long insurgency. The Maoists movement that brought Nepal to its knees would not have been succeeded without India's generosity. India not only provided the Maoists a safe heaven to operate, but also forced democratic forces to bed with them, whose ugly repercussions are unfolding slowly.
India's soft corner for those that raise arms against Nepali state did not end with its generosity towards the Maoists. It continues to provide safe heaven to armed secessionist groups that want to disintegrate Nepal. How is Pakistan's support to Jihadists that want to free Kashmir different from India's turning blind eyes on groups that have raised arms to seek secession? Armed struggle in Nepal will not survive without Indian benevolence.
What India as a nation should understand is that, it can only progress the way it wants to, when South Asia as a regions is, stable and peaceful. It cannot and will not remain insulated from the pouring in of negative externalities if its neighbors fail. It should, thus, stop providing safe heaven to groups that raise arms against its neighbors. Only then, India will have moral authority to ask Pakistan to go after the groups that carry out anti-Indian activities in Pakistani soil.
If India continues to provide safe heaven to the armed groups that raise arms against Nepal, armed struggle in Nepal will never wane. Bunch of incompetent but ambitious individuals that lack patience and caliber to win the hearts and mind of Nepali people through peaceful democratic means will keep on waging wars in the name of fighting oppression. Looking at honeymoon period of the Maoist government, it becomes evident that rhetoric alone is not enough to bring changes. For change to come, the rulers should have a vision and competence. Is India ready to be held accountable, if the so called revolutionaries, to whom it provides safe heaven, fail to deliver, like the Maoists, and bring about positive changes?
The Maoists in Nepal had an excellent opportunity bring about changes. There was no need to create rogue institution like Young Communist League (YCL). They had already created a political space for themselves. The defeat of stalwarts of the United Marxist Leninist Party (UML) at the hands of the obscure Maoists figures clearly showed that the UML's grassroots operatives had mass-migrated to the Maoists Party. Instead of trying to capitalize their gains and focusing on providing services to the people, the Maoists remained glued to their red book, which states terror as a method social control.
With the honeymoon period over, the excitement generated by Maoists' revolution has dissipated. With waning of euphoria, Puspa Kamal Dahal finds himself under fire. His next step? If worst comes, step down and wreck havoc till the next government is overwhelmed. The Nepali politics is sure to get confrontational in days to come. The way things are unfolding, it appears that, we will once again witness a bloody conflict, whereby the very same people who declared the Maoists terrorists will be at the helm of affairs, and the Maoists at offensive. Who gains from this, if this is to really happen? Not Nepali people for sure!
India, when it comes to its own security, aggressively calls for wiping out groups that act against India's national security, but when it is India's turn to reciprocate, its record has been pretty dismal. If nothing, what India can and should learn from the failure of the Maoist government in Nepal is that, there are tons of incompetent and ambitious politicians in Nepal, who are ready to wage war against the state. How do you identify true revolutionaries that can change the face of Nation from phonies, who pose as revolutionaries and wage wars against the state to forward their political agendas? And, will the justification for armed struggle ever get over if a neighbor keeps on rewarding armed insurgencies targeted at its neighbor?
There will always be complaints about injustice caused by the state. No country has ever been fully able to satisfy its citizens. But that cannot simply be the reason for armed struggle. India should force various armed groups that are waging wars against its neighbor to shut down their shops if it really wants Pakistan to go after jihadists that are waging holy war against India.
India cannot win the war against terrorism on its own. If it really wants to win this war, it has to stop the blame game and cooperate with its neighbors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)