सोमवार, 13 अगस्त 2012

"जरूरत का नाम भारत''


नेपाल की समकालीन राजनीति में बाबू राम भट्टराइ शायद अकेले नेता हैं, जो जमीनी हकीकत को समझते हैं। अन्य नेपाली माओवादी नेताओं की तरह भट्टराइ किसी यूटोपिया में नहीं जीते। नेपाल-भारत के संबंधों पर वे दूसरे नेताओं की तरह अपनी जनता को गुमराह नहीं करते। आज जब नेपाल के तमाम बड़े नेता भारत के खिलाफ प्रोपगंडा कर अपनी राजनीतिक रोटी सेंक रहे हैं, तो भट्टराइ ने कटु सच को स्वीकार किया है। अधिकतर नेता भारत को "चौधरी'' कहकर आरोप लगाते हैं कि वह नेपाल के अंदरुनी मामलों में जबर्दस्ती हस्तक्षेप करता है। हालांकि भट्टराइ ने बहुत-सी बातें नहीं कही हैं, जो कहना जरूरी था। मसलन  उन्होंने यह नहीं बताया कि नेपाल का भारत के साथ वर्षों से बेटी-रोटी का संबंध है, जिसे राजनीति के चश्में से नहीं समझा जा सकता। इसके बावजूद उन्होंने नेपाली दैनिक 'काठमांडू पोस्ट' को हाल में दिये गये एक साक्षात्कार में कई मिथकों पर से पर्दा उठाया है। यह साक्षात्कार मुझे महत्वपूर्ण लगा, क्योंकि इससे भारत-नेपाल के तथाकथित विशेषज्ञों की बहुत-सी गलतफहमियां  और पूर्वग्रह दूर हो सकते हैं। प्रस्तुत है यह साक्षात्कार - (रंजीत)

Most of Nepal’s Prime Mini-sters have faced accusations of lacking nationalist credentials. Why?
There are historical reasons. Especially after the Treaty of Sugauli where Nepal had to compromise with a weaker position, the hegemony of the British increased. Their role was visible in all changes of government here. With time, in terms of political economy, our relationship with India became increasingly unequal. Because of the Himalayas and difficulty of transport, we remained distant from China. Nepal was capable of having equal relationships with both India and China before the Sugauli treaty. During the Rana regime, our relationship with the north became almost non-existent. That made keeping a balanced relationship with India difficult. Political economy-wise, we were transitioning towards industrial capitalism before Sugauli. That process was halted. And we turned into exporters of labour, and importers of goods from British India. Today, if you look at the political economy, we’re so dependent on India that it’s not possible to halt foreign intervention even if one wants it.
But some actors have been more skillful than others at the balancing act?
Practically speaking, the role of individual does not have much bearing. During the Cold War in the 60s, king Mahendra tried to balance the relationship to run his autocratic regime. In the 80s, the situation changed, and Mahendra’s policy was no longer possible: Nepal was compelled to tilt towards the south. It’s because of this reason that a psychology of insecurity continued among the Nepalis. When a country is dependent with another country economically, making the relationship favourable politically, is impossible.
Was there a fundamental shift in the relationship between India and Nepal after India was decolonised?
There were no real changes in terms of the political economy. Nepal had a movement for democracy, and the worldwide movements for national independence also affected us in some ways. A slightly modified version of the 1923 treaty Nepal had signed with the British India was inked in 1950, but it was a continuation. Without a change in political economy, other changes in relationship were not possible.
Your party sometimes says that we’re a semi-colonial country. Why?
Political economy-wise, it’s still semi-colonial but that semi-colonial form is changing into a neo-colonial form. You can call the current situation a neo-colonial relationship with economic and financial domination. In the language of dependency theorists, it’s a dominant-dependent relationship. Many other countries like ours in the developing world are tied in this type of relationship.
Your party regarded India as the ‘principal enemy’, now critics accuse you and your party of being ‘pro-India’ (Bharat-parast). Can you explain? 
This is a shallow analysis made by people who don’t understand the history and political economy. Since Nepal’s communist party was established in 1949, and especially at the height of Maoist movement, the policy has been to end semi-feudal relationships internally and semi-colonial/neo-colonial relationships externally. Only then can Nepal become fully sovereign and democratic.
at a certain stage of the movement, we raised the issue of nationalism more vocally. But after the People’s War took a new height, and when the monarchy started asserting itself, we shifted our policy: we put on hold the external aspect and focused on the internal aspects.  People who don’t understand this say we’re Bharat-parasta.
Many Nepalis worry the rivalries between two rising powers, China and India, is being played out in Nepal.  Comments?
Both China and India are developing countries. They shouldn’t consider each other as rivals. Historically, China was an empire but it shouldn’t think along those lines. During the British rule, India  adopted a colonial policy in South Asia. China and India should think of themselves as complements, not competitors, and focus on the welfare of their people. But unfortunately, they tend to understand each other as competitors, and a kind of tussle appears in Nepal. Nepal shouldn’t be a yam between two boulders, but a vibrant bridge between two vibrant economies. 
Has the rivalry between India and China affected Nepal’s development?  
The Indian psyche is such that it considers itself insecure if any power increases its activities in the south of the Himalayas. India has that mentality. Similarly, China is sensitive that instability in Tibet might come from south of the Himalayas. There’s a third factor as well. Western powers want to keep some kind of a foothold between two giant economies and they take up interventionist roles. As a result, Nepal appears to be in a triangular contention. If we want to truly maintain our national sovereignty, we should be capable of moving forward and manage this triangular contention. 
Given the previous imbalance, and the rise of China, many say we should expand our relationship with China. Your views?
Given the way China is rising as an economic great-power, it’d be mutually beneficial if we could expand our economic relationship. But a qualitative change in relationship is not possible: at the moment only about 10-15 percent of our trade is with China, whereas about 65 percent of it is with India. So my perspective is that we should adopt a policy of establishing a balanced relationship between China and India to develop our infrastructure. For historical reasons, in the early stages, our ties with India will be stronger. That’s why I’ve wanted to have agreements like BIPPA with both India and China. The goal for us is to attract inv-estment from both countries for rapid economic growth, and keep a balanced relationship. I believe only then will Nepal’s nationalism be protected.
Have you noticed increased Chinese engagement in Nepal?
It’s natural for a rising power like China to make public its concerns. I don’t think the Chinese interest has grown in an unnatural way. For historical reasons, our traditional relationship with China has been weak. That has grown quantitatively, but not qualitatively. Today, our dependency is toward the south and that’ll continue to be the case for some time. For that reason, we shouldn’t be alarmed by a small, quantitative change in the level of China’s engagement.
Tibet obviously is a big issue for China. Has the Nepal government been in a dilemma as to how to address Nepal’s international obligations simultaneously with China’s security interests?
China is naturally sensitive about Tibet and has security concerns. We have to give those concerns a  priority, especially because they come from a big power and a neighbour. It’s not in our interest to anger China or to arouse its suspicions. If some of them [Tibetans] are genuine refugees, and are proven to be so after investigation, we have to recognise them as such. If they’re not real refugees and come here because of economic crimes or other reasons, or because they are deceived into coming here, then we don’t have to recognise them as refugees.
Finally, there is a lot of public resentment against covert operations carried out in Nepal in the name of foreign policy. Your views?
In today’s interconnected world, you can’t completely stop overt and covert activities by international power centres. But we cannot accept any activities that are in violation of domestic and international laws.

6 टिप्‍पणियां:

डॉ. रूपचन्द्र शास्त्री मयंक (उच्चारण) ने कहा…

बहुत सुन्दर...स्वतन्त्रतादिवस की पूर्व संध्या पर बहुत-बहुत शुभकामनाएँ!

रंजीत/ Ranjit ने कहा…

apko bhee swtantra divas kee hardik subhkamna .

Dr. Dhanakar Thakur ने कहा…

I am sorry PM ,Nepal has lost some of the points which govern Indo-Nepal relations.
From the angle of Euro nation-state polity India and Nepal are two states politically and if state amounts to be synonymous with nation they are two but the fact remained that Indian subcontinent from Himalayas to sea and Ankorwat(SEAsia to Afghanistan) the people have one nationality called BHARTI in Vishnu Puran-
Uttarm yat samudrasy Himadraschaiv dakshinam, varsham tad Bhartam nam
Bharti yatra santaih.
This nation ship is based on experiences of millennia and it has been the place of several countries from time immemorial and as per Skand Purana one who ruled from Himalayas to sea was a SAMRAT(Emperor).
SARC countries and neighbourhood are one cultural nation and that is too be understood by7 all countries of this region.
And this relationship cannot be seen in terms of economy of which can be managed by several ways.

If Nepal ever try to maintain an equilibrium with both great countries it will be lost not because of economic consequences but for cultural annihilation.
Bereft of that culture it would desert like a barren land and would be used by China like it is using Tibet as a counter to India and Nepal too will become a phalanx of its imperial design which in this 21st century will come via economic routes.
PMs of Nepal did not lack in nationalist credentials as anti-Indian hyperbole is like that of any Pakistan premieres Kashmir rhetoric. Treaty of Sugauli might have weakened Nepal but had tormented Mithila and Maithils both side are still restless and had British supervened Nepal instead of Treaty there would not have been a country like Nepal which has not older history of Kingdom than Mithila or Videh had! No question of its weaker position as that would remain much weaker than India if under the arms of China. The hegemony of the British might have increased but that should be seen in historical perspective just like any other principality of Indian King . After all some times back of British supremacy Nepal had hardly this configuration it has today. Thanks British that it accepted Nepal and so Modern India too had to .

Dr. Dhanakar Thakur ने कहा…

The talk of becoming unequal in relations with India is absurd. Indian as a state and moreso Indians have never thought any Nepali different anyway. A life sans India for majority of Nepalis would not be life itself and with China’s influence would be ultimately suffocating for any Nepali not only Terai Maithil or Madheshi who constitute a near majority of populace and would never accept such a hypothetical China-centric politics which may result in the Balkanisation of Nepal .
The Himalayas and difficulty of transport, might kept Nepal distant from China but that is not only thing- Nepalis and Indians are bloody related and are one which no politics can divide. It is wrong to say," Nepal was capable of having equal relationships with both India and China before the Sugauli treaty." and is only hypothesis.
Not only during the Rana regime, Nepal's relationship with the China became almost non-existent in fact it was never having such relation and was not required.
The political artificial lines separate Nepal from India but sure a God-made Himalayas separates you and despite many artificial ways would never connect your should though body may with cool and chill!

Dr. Dhanakar Thakur ने कहा…

"Political economy-wise, we were transitioning towards industrial capitalism before Sugauli. That process was halted." for that matter was applicable to whole India not only Nepal when British goods jumped Indian market..
India too face unequal development and neighbouring Bihar, UP are worse than Nepal as exporters of labour, and importers of goods from rest of western and southern India. Nepal was never compelled to tilt towards the south it cannot tilt towards north is a bitter truth.
Psychology of insecurity continued among the Nepalis which has been wrong rather the communists in Nepal had created an India-Phobia. There is no question of economically, making the relationship favourable politically, even with the China in any given circumstance.

True there were no real changes in terms of the political economy even in India itself and it is more a Marxian jargon than the realities.
Nepal had a movement for democracy, and the worldwide movements for national independence also affected it in some ways but it was most affected by Indian Independence movement than anything else and in both sides it was complimentary. The recent armed struggle might have erupted kingdom but one cannot erupt soil and soul be understood. There is undue comments on Indo-Nepal treaty which in anyway is to continue and is in the favour of Nepali citizens more than that of Indians.
Not only Nepal all decolonised countries would remain semi-colonial countries for obvious historical reasons.
The present unipolarisation of the world is transforming them into a neo-colonial form and tha tis not for Nepal, exclusive..
Economic and financial domination is not due to Indian but of western influence of Waal Mart and if Nepal obviates that would slide to China side only again with its small economy in an imaginary state though it is not going to happen as explained earlier.
Calling it "a dominant-dependent relationship,' would be unjustified as that Nepal has to suffer in anyway for its meagre size compared with both.
Any party regarding India as the ‘principal enemy’, cannot sustain Nepal and likewise calling ‘pro-India’ (Bharat-parast)is equally wrong as rightly you have said "people who don’t understand the history and political economy of the region..
"Semi-feudal relationships internally and semi-colonial/neo-colonial relationships externally. may sound good but till ground realities are understood talk of Nepal becoming a fully sovereign and democratic would be futile.
Once any party is focused on the internal aspects, would be called Bharat-parasta which is not fact but realities is Nepal and Bharat is intertwined with like mother and child in utero. .

True both China and India are developing countries but rivalry has developed because of expansionism of China . Remember Nepal will be its victim like Tibet.
Historically, China was an empire and still it dreams so which is difficult as India is a road blocker of its sinister designs. China and India should think of themselves as complements, not competitors, and focus on the welfare of their people but unfortunately, they tend to understand each other as competitors, and the cause is apparently China's nozzle down south Himalays after grabbing Tibbet, a Buffer state.
True, Nepal shouldn’t be a yam between two boulders, but it will have to take a firm stand in coming 3-4 decades and should not dream for a vibrant bridge between two vibrant economies.

Dr. Dhanakar Thakur ने कहा…

"Political economy-wise, we were transitioning towards industrial capitalism before Sugauli. That process was halted." for that matter was applicable to whole India not only Nepal when British goods jumped Indian market..
India too face unequal development and neighbouring Bihar, UP are worse than Nepal as exporters of labour, and importers of goods from rest of western and southern India. Nepal was never compelled to tilt towards the south it cannot tilt towards north is a bitter truth.
Psychology of insecurity continued among the Nepalis which has been wrong rather the communists in Nepal had created an India-Phobia. There is no question of economically, making the relationship favourable politically, even with the China in any given circumstance.

True there were no real changes in terms of the political economy even in India itself and it is more a Marxian jargon than the realities.
Nepal had a movement for democracy, and the worldwide movements for national independence also affected it in some ways but it was most affected by Indian Independence movement than anything else and in both sides it was complimentary. The recent armed struggle might have erupted kingdom but one cannot erupt soil and soul be understood. There is undue comments on Indo-Nepal treaty which in anyway is to continue and is in the favour of Nepali citizens more than that of Indians.
Not only Nepal all decolonised countries would remain semi-colonial countries for obvious historical reasons.
The present unipolarisation of the world is transforming them into a neo-colonial form and tha tis not for Nepal, exclusive..
Economic and financial domination is not due to Indian but of western influence of Waal Mart and if Nepal obviates that would slide to China side only again with its small economy in an imaginary state though it is not going to happen as explained earlier.
Calling it "a dominant-dependent relationship,' would be unjustified as that Nepal has to suffer in anyway for its meagre size compared with both.
Any party regarding India as the ‘principal enemy’, cannot sustain Nepal and likewise calling ‘pro-India’ (Bharat-parast)is equally wrong as rightly you have said "people who don’t understand the history and political economy of the region..
"Semi-feudal relationships internally and semi-colonial/neo-colonial relationships externally. may sound good but till ground realities are understood talk of Nepal becoming a fully sovereign and democratic would be futile.
Once any party is focused on the internal aspects, would be called Bharat-parasta which is not fact but realities is Nepal and Bharat is intertwined with like mother and child in utero. .

True both China and India are developing countries but rivalry has developed because of expansionism of China . Remember Nepal will be its victim like Tibet.
Historically, China was an empire and still it dreams so which is difficult as India is a road blocker of its sinister designs. China and India should think of themselves as complements, not competitors, and focus on the welfare of their people but unfortunately, they tend to understand each other as competitors, and the cause is apparently China's nozzle down south Himalays after grabbing Tibbet, a Buffer state.
True, Nepal shouldn’t be a yam between two boulders, but it will have to take a firm stand in coming 3-4 decades and should not dream for a vibrant bridge between two vibrant economies.