Lipulekh: Nepal’s Struggle with India and China

For a small country, sovereignty is more than just a word; it is the core principle of independence.

By Sanjay Upadhya

Once again, the way Nepal’s land is treated by its larger neighbors as if it were just a bargaining tool becomes clear. The Lipulekh dispute shows this betrayal, revealing how India and China – despite claiming friendship – have encroached on Nepal’s rights.

Last month in New Delhi, China and India announced the resumption of border trade through the Lipulekh Pass. Nepal considers this far-western territory part of its Darchula district, based on historical maps. Conversely, India argues that the Kalapani area, which includes the pass, belongs to it, citing colonial-era agreements.

This much is clear. The Kali River marks the border between India and Nepal. However, there has been a long-standing debate over the river's source and the exact location of the border. 

India maintains that the watershed boundary should serve as the border. In 2019, New Delhi released a new political map showing Kalapani as part of India. Nepal responded the next year by updating its official map to include Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura, and later incorporated these regions into its Constitution.

Following last week’s India-China agreement, Nepal’s government issued a statement reaffirming its claim. The statement emphasized Nepal’s consistent request for India to refrain from activities such as road construction or border trade in this area.

In response, India’s External Affairs Ministry spokesperson said, “Border trade between India and China through Lipulekh pass began in 1954 and has continued for decades... such claims are not justified and lack evidence.”

In 2015, India and China agreed to boost trade through Lipulekh. The fact that negotiations took place over Nepali territory without informing Kathmandu is a serious breach of Nepal’s sovereignty. It also shows that the country’s borders are only recognized when it suits neighboring states.

India’s role demands particular concern. Since 1954, India has maintained a military presence in Kalapani, gradually asserting control after its 1962 conflict with China. The 2019 map, which labeled Lipulekh as Indian territory, was not just an update but a strategic move to redraw boundaries at Nepal’s expense. For a country that claims to value its friendship with Nepal, this was a serious breach of trust.

China also bears responsibility. By supporting the Lipulekh trade route agreement with India, Beijing ignored Nepal’s sovereignty. How can a country claiming to uphold ‘territorial integrity’ cooperate in ways that undermine this principle? While China promotes Belt and Road projects, which India opposes, Beijing’s actions suggest Nepal is being used as a pawn in its rivalry with New Delhi.

Adding to Nepal’s worries is the silence among its political leaders. Instead of showing unity, many stay divided, opportunistic, and hesitant. They often use nationalist rhetoric but sometimes drop these positions for quick political gains. When a country faces external betrayal, internal divisions make the situation worse.

Lipulekh is more than just a mountain pass; it represents Nepal’s dignity. If the country’s sovereignty is compromised even once, it risks further loss. Nepal must respond clearly and strongly, or it may be pushed aside in key border decisions.

Nepal must remind India and China that it is not just a buffer zone or passive observer. As a proud sovereign nation with a rich history, Nepalis view territorial encroachment for strategic gain not only as a betrayal of the current generation but also of all those who fought to preserve national independence over the centuries.

The Path Forward 

The Lipulekh issue requires careful diplomacy and national unity rather than emotional reactions. Nepal should strengthen its boundary commission, gather and share old maps, treaties, and documents to support its case. It should continue negotiations with India and encourage China to recognize Nepal’s rights in future talks.

Nepal needs a proactive diplomatic strategy that involves regional organizations like SAARC, BIMSTEC, and the United Nations. These actions will show Nepal’s dedication to safeguarding its territory through peaceful and lawful methods.

Most importantly, Nepal’s political leaders must unite and speak with a clear, unwavering voice. Protecting sovereignty is too important to be dependent on partisan politics or quick fixes. Calm, principled diplomacy combined with domestic stability is crucial to ensure Nepal’s meaningful participation in decisions about its land.

Lipulekh tests Nepal’s borders and its resilience as a free and independent nation. The way this challenge is handled will influence not only this dispute but also the confidence in national sovereignty going forward.

Crown Considerations

Rethinking the monarchy’s role – not as a descent into autocracy, but as a foundation for stability.

By Sanjay Upadhya

Narayanhiti Palace, which served as the residence and
workplace of the reigning monarchs of Nepal, is now a
museum. Photo courtesy: Suraj Belbase/Wikipedia

Almost two decades after the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of a federal, democratic, and secular republic, Nepal faces significant challenges, including instability, corruption, and an unclear national identity. These factors threaten the country’s democratic aspirations.

Despite ongoing difficulties, the resilience of the Nepalese populace is truly commendable. However, confidence in political institutions has diminished, leading many young Nepalis to seek stability abroad.

The dissolution of the monarchy in 2008 did not yield the prosperity that political leaders had promised. In this context, it is imperative to reconsider the monarchy’s role, perceiving it not as a regressive step toward autocracy but as a potential unifying entity that could promote stability and represent national unity.

While it is important to acknowledge the flaws associated with the monarchy, it remains vital to recognize that this institution did not create the prevailing issues. During Nepal’s constitutional monarchy, the king served as a neutral guardian of national unity, embodying continuity, tradition, and a distinctive sovereignty separate from political factions.

National Unity

Historically, the monarchy in Nepal has served as a crucial symbol of unity among its diverse ethnic and linguistic groups. Although the Shah dynasty originated from a specific region and ethnic background, it united various communities throughout Nepal. In contrast, political parties often exacerbate divisions by favoring certain groups based on ethnicity, region, or ideology.

Restoring a constitutional monarchy similar to those in the United Kingdom, Japan, or Norway would clearly separate the head of state’s role from political responsibilities. This structure would allow a representative to embody national continuity. Unlike elected officials, who may change with each political transition, a monarch can rise above partisan conflicts, potentially providing moral guidance and reinforcing cherished national values.

Nepal’s rich cultural and religious heritage has long been associated with the monarchy, which constitutes a fundamental aspect of its national identity. Although Nepal is presently secular, the monarchy represented more than mere Hindu authority. Its removal has created a void that no alternative institution has sufficiently addressed. During periods of cultural transformation, the monarchy may have offered solace and a sense of historical connection for those seeking spiritual support.

Restoration of the monarchy does not imply a regression to an autocratic system. It is essential to examine historical missteps, particularly regarding royal abuse of power during the Panchayat and direct rule. Nevertheless, these historical errors should not constrain the monarchy’s future. A deliberate approach that integrates democracy with the ceremonial role of a king within a contemporary constitutional framework could reduce the intensity of partisan politics.

In many stable democracies, monarchs take on significant responsibilities in ceremonial roles, promote national unity, and uphold their constitutions impartially. Nepal could greatly benefit from adopting a customized model that meets its unique needs.

Restoring Balance  

In light of the nation’s challenges in navigating the current geopolitical landscape, reinstating the monarchy could help Nepal achieve balance in its foreign policy. A constitutional monarch might serve as a neutral head of state, enhancing consistency and credibility in relations with its two main neighbors, India and China.

Monarchs have effectively represented Nepal’s independent identity, particularly during the Cold War and within the Non-Aligned Movement. A reestablished monarchy could enable Nepal to withstand undue influence from either neighbor, strengthen connections with the broader international community, and advocate for a comprehensive foreign policy.

The republic has had its chance. Throughout the last sixteen years, it has faced challenges related to trust-building, governance, and national unity. We need to determine if a neutral, unifying constitutional monarchy could bring coherence to our divided political landscape.

This discourse goes beyond simply choosing between monarchy and democracy. If discussed thoughtfully, the monarchy could play a crucial role in forging a more hopeful future for Nepal.

Nepal’s Perpetual Political Transition

Thousands of teachers protesting in Kathmandu
against an education bill in parliament.
Photo credit: @x.com/@airnewsalerts

As discontent grows, the opportunity for meaningful reform continues to diminish.

By Sanjay Upadhya

Nepal is facing a veritable season of discontent. Royalists are protesting for the reinstatement of the monarchy and Hindu statehood. Schoolteachers are agitating for the prompt implementation of legislation that addresses their longstanding concerns about job security, fair wages, and working conditions. They oppose an education reform bill in parliament, which they claim would shift government-run schools to local control, diminish their status, and eliminate many temporary teacher positions. And now, the education minister has resigned from the cabinet.

Key figures within the ruling establishment are blaming one another for the current disorder. Ten months ago, the coalition government of the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist-Leninist and the Nepali Congress was formed on a platform to amend the constitution. However, it has taken no steps in that direction.

Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli is under renewed pressure following the sudden resignation of Education Minister Bidhya Bhattarai. Her resignation is said to stem from disagreements regarding the management of the teacher protests.

The ongoing demonstrations in Kathmandu and other cities illustrate years of frustration due to political mismanagement, economic hardships, and widespread corruption. Many Nepalis feel stuck in a never-ending political transition.

Since 1948, Nepal has had six constitutions before settling on the current one. The political systems have varied from Rana family rule to multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy, palace-led non-party rule, and a restored multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy. 

In 2008, the nation significantly shifted from a monarchy to a federal and secular democratic republic, which created high hopes for extensive political change. However, persistent political instability raises serious concerns about the state of democracy in Nepal.

Enacting the current constitution in 2015 marked a significant advancement for inclusive governance. This fundamental law aimed to address longstanding structural inequalities by establishing a secular federal republic that distributes power and empowers historically marginalized communities.

A decade later, Nepal’s political landscape remains unstable. Failures within the government, rivalries among political groups, and a tendency to prioritize personal and group interests over the nation’s overall advancement have hindered the progress of democracy.

Internal strife among leading political parties has led to multiple leadership shifts within the executive branch. No party holds an absolute majority in parliament, and successive coalition governments have faced challenges in operating effectively.

Weak institutional growth has hindered both political parties and government agencies. Centralized decision-making among a limited group of senior leaders obstructs internal democratic processes. Excluding younger Nepalis from leadership roles has intensified public dissatisfaction. Many citizens believe that governance is becoming increasingly out of touch with the issues affecting the population.

The impact of federalism has varied significantly among the nation’s seven provinces. Local councils often encounter challenges due to limited resources, insufficient technical expertise, and restricted administrative independence. Furthermore, the central government’s reluctance to delegate substantial authority has led to inefficiencies and growing public dissatisfaction.

The ceremonial presidency, traditionally held by a senior party leader, has consistently failed to rise above partisan interests during pivotal times. Aspirations for an impartial institution to manage the nation’s turbulent politics have been thwarted. Many support the idea of a directly elected executive president, even as discussions continue about restoring the monarchy and establishing a Hindu state identity. 

Royalists view the crown as a symbol of national unity and stability, aiming to restore the monarchy and strengthen Nepal’s identity as a Hindu state. They argue that Nepal has been excessively influenced by foreign powers, particularly India and the West, perceiving the monarchy as a means to reclaim sovereignty and enhance national identity. They assert that the loss of Hindu statehood has diminished the country’s traditions and uniqueness.

In his Nepali New Year’s Eve message on April 13, former king Gyanendra Shah outlined a political and economic roadmap to revitalize the country’s governance based on its traditions and values. Key figures within the ruling parties and strong advocates of the republican model recognize that the government must revise its approach to regain public favor. Nevertheless, they argue that reinstating the monarchy is not the solution.

Additionally, republicans maintain that restoring the monarchy is improbable because of inadequate political and public support, coupled with constitutional challenges. Although there have been royalist demonstrations, they argue that these initiatives are undermined by ineffective leadership and a lack of broad enthusiasm. Republicans further claim that historical controversies surrounding the monarchy obstruct its prospects for restoration.

Political instability continues to impact economic growth significantly. Slow investor confidence has resulted in ongoing delays in crucial infrastructure projects. Key sectors such as tourism, agriculture, and hydropower remain underutilized. Additionally, high youth unemployment and increasing labor migration pose alarming issues.

Like in other countries, the judiciary, civil society organizations, and media are crucial in enhancing accountability and transparency. However, their actions often face increasing criticism from Nepalis. 

Nepalis are advocating for systemic change, effective governance, and inclusive development. Ongoing political unrest underscores the daily challenges encountered by a transitional democracy. However, the likelihood of meaningful reform appears to be waning.

Nepal: The Status Quo Cannot Hold

Whether the country decides to restore the monarchy or strengthen its republic, one thing is clear: the status quo is no longer acceptable to the people.

By Sanjay Upadhya

Royalists hold a street demonstration in Kathmandu on April 8,
demanding the reinstatement of the monarchy.
Photo courtesy: Rastriya Prajatantra Party

The Himalayan republic of Nepal is experiencing a resurgence of pro-monarchy protests in recent weeks, fueled by rising frustration with the country’s political system. Supporters of the former king and nationalist organizations are calling for the restoration of the Hindu monarchy and the abolition of the federal democratic republic.

Corruption, political instability, economic hardships, and disillusionment with the promises of democracy fuel this movement. However, does returning to monarchy provide a solution, or is it merely a longing for a past that might not have been as glorious as it seems?

A March 28 protest turned violent, with police charging batons and lobbing teargas shells at the protesters. Two people were killed, including a video journalist who was burned alive when the building he was filming from was set ablaze. Protesters and police blame each other for the fire. A second victim was a bystander shot by the police. Numerous vehicles and buildings were set ablaze.

The government has blamed the violence on former King Gyanendra Shah, who released a video message a few weeks earlier, urging Nepalis to unite with him to save the nation. The protesters attributed the deaths and destruction to government heavy-handedness and agent provocateurs.

Hopes Defied

Nepal’s monarchy was abolished in 2008, and the country transitioned into a secular, federal democratic republic in 2015. This system has not met the expectations of its people. The succession of more than a dozen prime ministers in the last two decades has resulted in weak governance, instability, and a lack of long-term planning.

Corruption permeates all levels, as politicians are accused of misusing state resources, thereby undermining public trust in the government. Despite countless election promises, economic opportunities remain limited, compelling thousands of Nepalis to seek employment abroad.

Federalism aimed to bring governance closer to the people; however, it created an additional layer of bureaucracy, leading to increased government expenditure with little progress. Many Nepalis believe this governance experiment has proven ineffective and unsustainable for a resource-constrained nation.

Royalists argue that Nepal’s problems arise from its shift away from being a Hindu state and from the monarchy. For centuries, Nepal stood as the world’s only Hindu kingdom, and many believe that secularism has undermined the nation’s cultural and religious identity. Concerns have surfaced that foreign-funded missionary activities are eroding Nepal’s traditions, leading to increasing calls for the reinstatement of Hindu statehood.

Advocates of monarchy assert that the royal family has traditionally offered stability and unity. Despite its shortcomings, the Shah dynasty maintained Nepal’s sovereignty and national identity. Mr. Shah continues to garner a devoted following, with his public appearances and remarks bolstering the royalist movement.

Foreign Influence

Another significant concern is Nepal’s increasing vulnerability to foreign influence. Nestled between two powerful neighbors – India and China – Nepal often finds itself caught in their geopolitical rivalry. India has long exerted substantial political and economic influence, while China has aggressively expanded its presence through infrastructure projects. Many Nepalis believe that external interference threatens their nation’s sovereignty.

Additionally, agreements like the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation grant have prompted protests due to concerns that they act as instruments of foreign control. Border disputes with India in areas such as Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura further intensify nationalist sentiments, leading many to believe that Nepal’s leaders lack the resolve to safeguard the nation’s territorial integrity.

While the monarchy represents stability for some, it does not provide a solution to Nepal’s deep-rooted issues. Corruption, economic struggles, and governance failures have continued under the monarchy. Restoring the crown does not inherently solve Nepal’s challenges, nor does reverting to a Hindu state guarantee national unity.

However, the growing dissatisfaction with the current political order should serve as a wake-up call for Nepal’s leaders. The failure of democratic governance has left people yearning for alternatives. Rather than dismissing royalist movements as regressive, the political establishment must address the people’s genuine concerns – economic growth, governance reforms, and national sovereignty.

Nepal stands at a crossroads. Whether the country chooses to restore the monarchy or strengthen its republic, one thing is clear: the status quo is no longer acceptable to the people.

Nepal: Royalist Burst Hits Republican Barrier

By Sanjay Upadhya

As Nepal grapples with the deaths and destruction resulting from the March 28 protests, the country continues to debate its core demand: the restoration of the monarchy and Hindu state identity.

Two people lost their lives, at least 100 were injured, and numerous vehicles and businesses were set on fire during the protests, prompting the government to impose a curfew in parts of Kathmandu and deploy the army.

Two senior leaders of the monarchist Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), along with several others, are in custody for incitement. At least a dozen individuals have been arrested for looting a department store. The police are currently searching for the chief protest organizer, Durga Prasai, who fled the scene. Some reports suggest he has crossed into India and is plotting his next moves.

The chaos, violence, and government crackdown initially raised questions about the future of the monarchy restoration project in Nepal. However, organizers have quickly regrouped. They appointed Jagman Gurung, the former vice-chancellor of the Nepal Academy, as the new head of the Monarchy Reinstatement Movement Committee. He succeeds Navaraj Subedi, who is currently under house arrest. Gurung will now serve as the committee's leader as royalist groups advance their protest plans.

The government and its allies immediately held former king Gyanendra accountable for the chaos, leading to a reduction in his state-provided security detail. Three days later, Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli informed parliament that Mr. Shah was responsible for the mayhem and asserted that the guilty would not escape punishment.

The government is facing pressure from the ruling parties and the opposition to arrest the ex-monarch and revoke his passport. The Kathmandu Municipality has imposed a fine of nearly Rs. 800,000 on Mr. Shah for the damage caused to public property and the environment during the protests. The ex-king has not issued a public statement regarding the violent protests or the allegations against him. Some reports indicate that he has been placed under informal house arrest.

The pro-monarchy movement in Nepal has intensified since February, following a message from Mr. Shah on Democracy Day. In his video message, the deposed monarch urged Nepalis to join him in ‘saving the nation’. Critics of the monarchy, both within the government and outside, began voicing their opposition, which escalated into a crescendo following a rally to welcome the ex-king on March 9, as he arrived in Kathmandu from Pokhara. An estimated 25,000 people participated in the rally, stretching from Tribhuvan Airport to Mr. Shah’s residence, located five kilometers away.

INDIAN ANGLE

The appearance of a poster featuring Yogi Adityanath, the chief minister of the neighboring Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, at the March 9 rally has raised concerns that New Delhi may be behind the royalist resurgence. Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli has made claims to that effect. Nepalis are also contemplating the roles of China, the United States, and the European Union – other influential players in Nepali politics – both before and after the protests.

India has not issued any official comment on the recent political developments in Nepal. However, reports indicate that it is closely monitoring how events unfold. Its broader policy emphasizes supporting Nepal’s democratic process while protecting its strategic interests. Nonetheless, if protests escalate into violence or instability, India may strengthen security along the Nepal-India border to prevent any repercussions.

Some Nepalis believe that although India may not be particularly eager to see the restoration of the monarchy, New Delhi would favor the reinstatement of Hindu statehood within the current republican framework.

The immediate narrative following the March 28 anarchy suggested that the pro-monarchy cause had been severely damaged – perhaps irretrievably – by the actions of the protesters. However, video footage of the events began circulating on social media, fueling speculation that security forces had used excessive force before any genuine security threat emerged. Protesters claimed they were merely responding to police provocation and asserted that government and party provocateurs had infiltrated the demonstration.

The most horrific episode was the burning alive of a video journalist when the building he was working in was set on fire. The government blamed the protesters for the arson, a charge they vehemently deny. It is unclear whether the second deceased was a protester or a bystander. However, some witnesses claim he was a victim of police brutality in an area that did not pose a security risk.

Conflicting accounts about the events leading up to and during the protests have challenged the initial claim of a significant defeat for the royalist cause. The RPP and other groups have vowed to continue demonstrations as part of a broader uprising against the government and the federal secular republican system.

Recent royalist protests in Nepal have been driven by growing public frustration over corruption, mismanagement, impunity, and the government's general lack of direction. Even some members of the ruling parties and supporters of the republican system agree that the government must change its approach to win back public support. Nevertheless, they assert that reverting to a monarchy is not the solution.

Royalists view the monarchy as a symbol of national unity and stability. They seek to restore the institution along with Nepal's Hindu state identity, which was abolished in 2008. Some argue that Nepal has become excessively influenced by foreign powers, particularly India and Western nations, perceiving the monarchy as a way to reclaim sovereignty and national identity.

Republicans argue that a return to the monarchy is impossible because of insufficient political and public support, along with constitutional obstacles. They point out that while royalist protests have occurred, they suffer from weak leadership and lack nationwide momentum. Previous controversies surrounding the monarchy also hinder the restoration of the institution.

Supporters of the monarchy argue that these remarks reflect the last struggles of a system already endangered by corruption, nepotism, mismanagement, and incompetence. They recall that the monarchy was abolished in a highly irregular and authoritarian way.

In 2006, public demonstrations were organized in response to the royal coup of the previous year. Both political parties and the public urged the king to restore parliament and transfer power to an interim prime minister leading a coalition of mainstream political parties and Maoist rebels, who had engaged in a decade-long insurgency against the monarchy and political parties.

A secret five-point agreement – essentially a compromise between the king and the political parties – has been reported to have laid the groundwork for subsequent political developments. The parties, among other things, agreed to support Nepal’s constitutional monarchy.

King Gyanendra appointed and swore in Girija Prasad Koirala, the president of the Nepali Congress, as the interim prime minister. His role was to sign a peace agreement with the Maoists and oversee elections for an assembly responsible for drafting a new constitution. The parties deny the existence of such an agreement, but former King Gyanendra confirmed in a televised interview several years ago that it had been reached.

The parties entrenched their positions over the following months, asserting that the assembly's initial meeting would abolish the monarchy. This development came after the king rejected backdoor negotiations to establish a 'baby king' – specifically, Gyanendra’s grandson – or a powerless cultural monarchy.

While the major parties embraced a republican agenda and secured an overwhelming majority of seats in the 2008 elections, royalist candidates claimed that mass intimidation and, in many cases, outright violence deprived them of campaign opportunities. The monarchy was abolished by a decisive vote of 560 to 4 in the 601-member assembly.

Royalists argue that the parties abandoned constitutional monarchy at the whim of a few leaders, leaving the populace voiceless. However, in successive elections, monarchist organizations like the RPP have not performed very well.

Public consultations garnered significant support for upholding a constitutional monarchy and Hindu statehood during the constituent assembly's preparation of the new constitution in 2015. However, these public sentiments were ignored, and Nepal shifted to a federal, secular democratic republic.

Rejecting the royalist narrative, republicans assert that the current political system arises from widespread discontent with an outdated institution and its inherent problems. However, even staunch republicans privately concede that such appeals are becoming increasingly difficult to make with a populace disillusioned by a series of broken promises.

Royalists express confidence that public frustration with the current order will lead more Nepalis to reconsider the monarchy as a stabilizing force. Furthermore, they argue that shifting regional political dynamics could pave the way for direct or indirect external support for a transition to a monarchy.

Originally published at https://www.vitastapublishing.com

Nepal: Revolution, Regression and Rampage

Royalists persist in their effort to restore the monarchy, while republicans strengthen their stance.

By Sanjay Upadhya

Former king Gyanendra Shah. Photo: Krish Dulal/Wikipedia.

THE highly anticipated royalist demonstrations on March 28 devolved into chaos and violence, raising questions about the future of the monarchy restoration project in Nepal. Two people lost their lives, around 100 were injured, and numerous vehicles and businesses were set ablaze, prompting the government to impose a curfew in parts of Kathmandu and deploy the army.

Two senior leaders of the monarchist Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) – senior vice-president Rabindra Mishra and general secretary Dhawal Shamsher Rana – along with several other individuals, are in custody for incitement. At least a dozen people were arrested for looting a department store.

The police are searching for the chief protest organizer, Durga Prasai, who escaped from the scene. Government supporters held a separate protest on the same day in a different part of Kathmandu, which passed peacefully.

The former vice-chancellor of the Nepal Academy, Jagman Gurung, has been appointed as the new head of the Monarchy Reinstatement Movement Committee. He replaces Navaraj Subedi, who is currently under house arrest. Gurung will now serve as the acting leader of the committee as royalist groups advance their protest plans.

The government and its allies immediately held former king Gyanendra accountable for the chaos, leading to a reduction in his state-provided security detail. Three days later, Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli informed parliament that Mr. Shah was responsible for the mayhem and asserted that the guilty would not escape punishment.

The government is under pressure from both the ruling parties and the opposition to arrest the ex-monarch and revoke his passport. Kathmandu Municipality imposed a fine of nearly Rs. 800,000 on Mr. Shah for the damage caused to public property and the environment during the protests. The ex-king has not made a public statement on the violent protests or the allegations against him. Some reports suggest that he has been placed under informal house arrest.

The pro-monarchy movement in Nepal has intensified since February, following a message by Mr. Shah on Democracy Day. In his video message, the deposed monarch urged Nepalis to join him in ‘saving the nation’. Since then, monarchists have staged multiple rallies across Nepal, demanding the restoration of the 240-year-old institution.

The immediate narrative following the March 28 anarchy was that the pro-monarchy cause had been severely damaged – perhaps irretrievably – by the actions of the protesters. However, video footage of the events began circulating on social media, fueling speculation that security forces had used excessive force before any real security threat emerged. Protesters claimed they were merely responding to police provocation and asserted that government and party provocateurs had infiltrated the demonstration.

The most horrific episode was the burning alive of video journalist Suresh Rajak when the building he was working in was set ablaze. The government blamed the protesters for the arson, a charge they vigorously deny. It is not clear whether the second deceased, Sabin Maharjan, was a protester or a bystander. However, some eyewitnesses claim he was the victim of police highhandedness in an area that was not a security risk.

Such conflicting accounts regarding the events before and during the protests have challenged the initial assertion of a significant defeat for the royalist cause. The RPP and other groups have pledged to persist with demonstrations as part of a larger uprising against the government and the federal secular republican system.

The protests were fueled by escalating public frustration over corruption, mismanagement, impunity, and the government’s overall lack of direction. Even some members of the ruling parties and advocates of the republican system concur that the government must alter its approach to regain public support. However, they insist that regressing to a monarchy is not the answer.

Royalists perceive the monarchy as a symbol of national unity and stability. They seek to reinstate the institution along with Nepal’s Hindu state identity, which was abolished in 2008. Some believe Nepal has become overly influenced by foreign powers, particularly India and Western nations, and view the monarchy as a means to reclaim sovereignty and national identity.

Republicans argue that a return to the monarchy is impossible due to insufficient political and public support and constitutional obstacles. They point out that while royalist protests have occurred, they suffer from weak leadership and lack nationwide momentum. Previous controversies surrounding the monarchy also work against a restoration of the institution.

Royalists express confidence that public frustration with the current order will encourage more Nepalis to reconsider the monarchy as a stabilizing force. They argue that the institution has played a crucial role in preserving Nepal’s Hindu identity. Additionally, they maintain that shifting regional political dynamics could lead to either direct or indirect external support for a transition towards monarchy.

For now, the contest will likely continue to take place on the Nepali street.

Battle Royal of Narratives in Nepal

In some ways, Nepal is today involved in a robust debate that is a decade and a half overdue.

By Sanjay Upadhya

Former king Gyanendra addressing Nepalis on the eve of the
75th Democracy Day on February 19.

A message from former king Gyanendra Shah on February 18, on the eve of Nepal’s 75th Democracy Day, and a large public rally two weeks later in support of the monarchy have sparked a vigorous clash of narratives.

In his video message, the deposed monarch urged Nepalis to join him in ‘saving the nation’. Critics within the government and beyond began to voice their opposition, which escalated into a crescendo following the rally on March 9. An estimated 25,000 people participated in the rally, stretching from Tribhuvan Airport to Mr. Shah’s residence, located five kilometers away.

The tone and tenor of the outbursts from the leaders of the three main parties – the Nepali Congress, the Nepal Communist Party Unified Marxist-Leninist, and the Nepal Communist Party Maoist Center – indicate that the establishment is worried about the rise of pro-royalist sentiments.

‘What’s wrong with the nation?’ asked Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli of the Unified Marxist-Leninist Party. Sher Bahadur Deuba, a leader of the Nepali Congress and a former prime minister, offered a tepid response saying the restoration of the monarchy was mere rumor mongering. Other leaders urged Mr. Shah to contest elections if he was eager to serve the nation. The most strident reaction came from former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, a one-time deputy leader of the Maoist rebels, who called for the arrest of the former king for violating the constitution.

The appearance of a poster featuring Yogi Adityanath, the ascetic chief minister of the neighboring Indian state of Uttar Pradesh and a prominent member of the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, at the rally has raised concerns that New Delhi may be behind the royalist resurgence. Nepalis are also contemplating how China, the United States, and Europe – influential players in Nepali politics – might react to these developments.

Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda,’ another former prime minister, intensified speculation by questioning whether both national and international forces were orchestrating the current developments. He described these as part of a conspiracy against the existing federal secular democratic republic. He escalated the situation days later by calling Mr. Shah a ‘brother killer’ – a reference to the June 2001 palace massacre that claimed the lives of then King Birendra, Queen Aishwarya, and seven other royal family members, leading to Gyanendra Shah’s accession to the throne.

Supporters of the monarchy argue that these outbursts represent the last gasps of a system already endangered by corruption, nepotism, mismanagement, and incompetence. They remember that the monarchy was abolished in a highly irregular and high-handed manner.

In 2006, public demonstrations were organized in response to the royal coup of the previous year. Both political parties and the public urged the king to restore parliament and transfer power to an interim prime minister leading a coalition of mainstream political parties and Maoist rebels who had been engaged in a decade-long insurgency against the monarchy and political parties.

A secret five-point agreement – essentially a compromise between the king and the political parties – was reported to have laid the groundwork for subsequent political developments. The parties, among other things, agreed to uphold Nepal’s constitutional monarchy.

King Gyanendra appointed and swore in Girija Prasad Koirala, president of the Nepali Congress, as the interim prime minister. His role was to sign a peace agreement with the Maoists and conduct elections for an assembly tasked with drafting a new constitution. The parties deny the existence of such an agreement, but former king Gyanendra confirmed in a televised interview several years ago that it had been reached.

The parties entrenched their positions over the next few months, asserting that the assembly’s first meeting would abolish the monarchy. This development followed the king’s rejection of backdoor negotiations to establish a ‘baby king’ – specifically, Gyanendra’s grandson – or a powerless cultural monarchy.

While the major parties embraced a republican agenda and secured an overwhelming majority of seats in the 2008 elections, royalist candidates claimed that mass intimidation and, in many cases, outright violence deprived them of campaign opportunities. The monarchy was abolished by a decisive vote of 560 to 4 in the 601-member assembly.

Royalists argue that the parties abandoned constitutional monarchy at the whim of a few leaders, rendering the populace voiceless. However, in successive elections, monarchist organizations such as the Rastriya Prajatantra Party have not performed that well.

During the preparation of the new constitution by the constituent assembly in 2015, public consultations garnered substantial support for preserving a constitutional monarchy and Hindu statehood. Nevertheless, these public sentiments were disregarded, and Nepal transitioned into a federal, secular democratic republic.

Rejecting the royalist narrative, republicans assert that the current political system stems from a widespread rejection of an anachronistic institution and its inherent ills. Even staunch republicans privately concede that such pleas are becoming harder to reach with a populace disillusioned by a succession of broken promises.

In some ways, Nepal is today involved in a robust debate that is a decade and a half overdue.

India’s ‘Turbulent Neighbourhood’

Foreign Policy Research Centre Journal interview with Sanjay Upadhya

1. Why are most South Asian states sceptical of India’s primacy in their own ways?

A combination of perceptual and contextual reasons has driven most South Asian states’ scepticism of India’s regional primacy. India’s geographical and demographic heft and preponderance of diplomatic, economic and military power have contributed to an underlying sense of vulnerability among its comparatively smaller and weaker neighbours.
At a concrete level, India’s involvement in the domestic affairs of smaller South Asian states has left a legacy of profound bitterness and resentment. The content and form have differed in individual countries, ranging from outright military involvement in Sri Lanka in the name of peacekeeping to an economic blockade of Nepal to force constitutional changes. Most smaller South Asian states have experienced what they consider flagrant instances of Indian micromanagement of their internal affairs.
These nations fiercely value their independence and sovereignty. They fervently guard their right to make their own decisions based on their perceived national interest. There also is a pronounced sentiment that New Delhi is unable to recognize that India’s adversaries are not automatically adversaries of its neighbours. Broadly speaking, the smaller South Asian states urge India to cease confusing regional leadership with regional policing.

2. Besides China’s assertive behaviour, political and economic instability in “turbulent neighbourhood” is a cause for concern for India. Do you agree?

China’s growing assertiveness in South Asia in recent years has raised India’s concern owing to, among other things, the deep-running Delhi-Beijing rivalry and its regional fallout. Political and economic instability in the smaller South Asian states has compounded that concern. India feels such instability can harm its security interests and vitiate the regional environment to New Delhi’s detriment.
In response, India has employed a combination of traditional diplomatic tools and more novel initiatives. New Delhi has recently been working on integrating the region economically for mutual cooperation to foster collective self-reliance. It is doing so by, among other things, enhancing connectivity through strong physical and digital infrastructure links.
In building strong bilateral ties, India is using its cultural heritage and values to strengthen goodwill and cooperation with its neighbours. The success of such endeavours would depend critically on the extent to which the region manages to overcome the underlying history of distrust.

3. Why is India working on developing an “extended neighbourhood” that involves islands in the Indian Ocean, Gulf countries and nations in South-East Asia.? Is it for a bigger, influential and ambitious India?

With India’s great power ambitions on the ascendant, it is natural for New Delhi to find ways to project its aspirations beyond its immediate vicinity. One way of doing so is by extending what India considers to be its neighbourhood. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has asserted that neighbours are not only those with whom one shares geographical boundaries but also those with whom hearts meet. Beyond such rhetorical flourish, trade, energy, security, and military imperatives underpin India’s extended neighbourhood framework. India’s contests with Pakistan and China – and their wider ramifications – have given added momentum to this approach.
As India seeks its ‘rightful place’ in its extended neighbourhood, concerns continue to be voiced. Commentators – Indian and foreign alike – have suggested that what New Delhi considers its rightful place, others can consider a hegemonistic threat. Nevertheless, the concept has become part of a new national consensus in foreign policy traversing the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Indian National Congress.

4. New Delhi’s ability to deal with Washington and Beijing can be significantly enhanced if India achieves greater strategic confidence in South Asian geopolitics. Do you agree?

Winning the trust of its South Asian neighbours and reflecting that confidence in its policies and pronouncements would certainly enhance India’s ability to deal with the United States and China. Mr. Modi’s Neighborhood First policy, enunciated with his rise to power in 2014, lays the basis for generating such strategic confidence. Under the policy, New Delhi has affirmed the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity; mutual respect and sensitivity; non-interference in internal affairs; shared prosperity; connectivity for regional integration; and people-to-people exchanges.
The invitations to leaders of neighboring states to Mr. Modi’s three oath-taking ceremonies are a manifestation of this approach. However, the practice has also been criticized. Smaller neighbours could perceive the invitations as a demonstration of India’s imperiousness and sense of predominance, akin to Emperor George V’s 1911 Delhi Durbar.
The smaller states assert that there are better ways to underscore good neighbourliness, such as greater Indian eagerness to resolve long-running divisive issues such as border disputes and water sharing. They continue to be concerned about Indian interference in neighbours’ domestic affairs under various guises. New Delhi needs to correct this contradiction in the neighbourhood before it can hope to play a more effective and influential role in the broader global arena.

5. The Indian government’s policy of diplomatically isolating Pakistan does not seem to be succeeding as Islamabad has stepped up its diplomatic efforts to engage Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran. How far is it true?

During the Cold War, Pakistan acquired its own strategic significance, which has not diminished substantially in the aftermath. To be sure, Pakistan faces multiple sources of internal and external conflict. Extremism, intolerance of diversity, and dissent have grown, threatening the country’s social cohesion and stability prospects. From India’s perspective, a nuclear-armed inimical state where good-faith engagement has repeatedly failed deserves to be diplomatically isolated.
Still, Pakistan’s strategic importance persists amid new geopolitical realignments. The country is situated at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East, and shares frontiers with Afghanistan, China, India, and Iran. This makes it a central actor in regional stability, trade routes, and global power dynamics, especially in security and energy.
India’s push to promote the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) over the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) as the primary neighborhood platform – in a palpable effort to shun Pakistan – has met with disgruntlement from many smaller states. Moreover, New Delhi’s effort to isolate Pakistan diplomatically has had to contend with a resurgence of Islamabad’s importance to countries such as Russia and Iran, with which New Delhi enjoys close ties.

FPRC Journal-58-(2024-2)

Book Review: Democracy in Turns: A Political Account of Nepal

“[A] story of how Nepal’s politicians pull out all the

parliamentary stops to undermine a competent democratic

government in a country starving for modernization,” 

writes JOHN P. HUGHES in the Friends of Nepal Newsletter.

 

https://friendsofnepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/248f52fa-1120-475b-a369-f12084d84062.pdf

Book Review: Insights Into the Modern Political History of Nepal

Sanjay Upadhya attempts to give readers a thorough overview of modern Nepali history, focusing on the political transformation in his latest book.

https://kathmandupost.com/books/2023/07/15/insights-into-the-modern-political-history-of-nepal#google_vignette

 

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s US Visit: Eye on China

By Sanjay Upadhya

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s state visit to the United States has given both countries enough stimulus to hail it as a turning point in the bilateral relationship.

The agenda prioritized defense ties, technology partnerships, and India’s role in the Indo-Pacific. A formal welcome at the White House, official talks with President Joe Biden, a state dinner, and an address to a joint session of Congress were the highlights of the visit. Modi and Biden offered fulsome praise to the common interests and aspirations of the world’s two largest democracies.

Enthusiastic welcome

At a joint news conference after the formal talks on June 22, Biden said the mutual partnership is “stronger, closer and more dynamic than at any time in history.” Modi emphasized that a new chapter of strategic partnership has begun between the two countries.

Modi’s address to the joint session of Congress later that day was met with a rapturous reception, despite some Democratic lawmakers boycotting it in protest of his government’s human rights record. He told the legislators that the “new dawn” in relations would shape the destiny not only of America and India but also of the world.

Agreements reached during the visit in defense, high technology, health, environment, space, energy and visas have provided a framework for a strengthened partnership.

A vital part of the ‘Global South’, which is trying to find a new form of non-alignment amid the Russia-Ukraine war, Biden will be able to promote India as more firmly tied to the US partnership.

Modi, for his part, will show that India’s moment has arrived on the world stage. The importance of such claims will have added value in the run-up to next year’s elections in both countries.

The ‘China threat’

The joint statement did not include the ‘China threat’, but nevertheless remained the central presence during the visit. Both countries aim to prevent an Asia dominated by China or an Indo-Pacific region subject to Chinese coercion.

The US aided India in counteracting China’s control in Asia during the Bush and Obama presidencies. US-China relations worsened under the Trump administration, during which ties between Beijing and New Delhi also plummeted. The US wanted India to help contain China’s growing global power.

Modi is viewed as a prominent representative of developing countries that do not want to be forced to choose between the United States and China. His government has been criticized for its treatment of the Muslim minority and its lack of tolerance for the press and political opposition. Washington has discounted those worries and emphasized strategic cooperation with New Delhi.

Although the Indo-US partnership has grown significantly in recent years, each country has come from a different vantage point. This could make the medium- and long-term impact of Modi’s visit less rosy.

Last year, the US and India conducted joint military exercises near the disputed border with China in the Indian state of Uttarakhand. India also joined Biden’s 14-member Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. Trade in goods and services between India and the US reached $190 billion last year, and the US is now India’s largest trading partner. Companies from each country have made significant investments in each other.

Last January, India and the US announced the launch of the US-India Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies to pave the way for technology value-chain partnerships leading to co-development and co-production of high-tech products and services in both countries. India could be a top pick for US government and business officials to reduce dependence on China for essential manufactured goods.

However, given China’s power and geographical proximity, New Delhi is unlikely to involve itself in any US confrontation with Beijing that does not directly threaten its security.

India strives to preserve its bond with China despite its rivalry. Indian policymakers acknowledge the disparity between Chinese and Indian national power. New Delhi’s relative weakness forces it to refrain from provocation. Given the long border between the two countries, India knows China can threaten Indian security in various ways.

In the long run, these contradictions may become even sharper. India is a significant power in Asia for the United States because of its location along important sea lanes and its long, disputed border with China. The United States is an attractive source of advanced technology, education and investment for India.

India’s readiness to work with the US results from circumstances, not a solid conviction. India’s priority seems to be to get US help in building its own national capabilities to deal with threats independently.

Philosophically, too, relations may not be as sturdy as they appear. According to some American policymakers, US-India ties are based on democratic principles and have broad strategic importance. The world’s two largest democracies share similar global views and interests. Washington endeavors to enhance India’s position within the liberal international order and looks forward to its support in safeguarding the global system.

Alliance or…?

Although it has transformed dramatically in the last 25 years, the US-India relationship has not reached the same level as other US allies. Indian leaders have long prioritized foreign policy independence as a central feature of India’s approach to the world.

However, voices are being raised within India, saying that neutrality is no longer viable. China’s progress in South Asia and other areas is hurting India. Given its inadequate defense capabilities, New Delhi will be vulnerable to Beijing’s machinations without a reliable external partner.

But India wants to avoid becoming a junior partner of any superpower. Aspiring to be a pole in a multipolar world, New Delhi is unlikely to undermine its important ‘strategic autonomy’ in foreign policy.

India has been reluctant to use the Quad, a security alliance with Australia, Japan and the US, to counter China’s aggression. Modi and Jaishankar have been praised in India for not condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This stance of neutrality, proponents argue, serves India’s interests well.

Some argue that the era of formal alliances is about to pass and that loose partnerships will be the way of the future. Ambiguity and uncertainty can cause serious threats that should not be underestimated.

Whither Nepal?

New Delhi and Beijing are already in a geostrategic rivalry in Nepal. Contradictions between America and India would create more challenges for the country.

India’s ability to withstand Chinese pressure will define the extent of its challenge to China in Nepal. The escalation of tensions is something India wants to avoid by not seeking or receiving direct US support.

The absence of the US’s open support to India in its competition with China will result in Nepal facing difficulties on three fronts. Navigating this volatile triangle will determine Nepal’s stability and long-term interests.

https://www.bbc.com/nepali/articles/c723xj55gngo

भारतीय प्रधानमन्त्री नरेन्द्र मोदीको अमेरिका भ्रमण: चीनकै चासो

 

- सञ्जय उपाध्याय

भारतीय प्रधानमन्त्री नरेन्द्र मोदीको संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिकाको राजकीय भ्रमणले दुवै देशलाई उनीहरू बीचको सम्बन्धमा कोशेढुङ्गा स्थापित भएको अर्थ्याउन पर्याप्त आधार दिएको छ।
भ्रमण एजेन्डामा रक्षा सम्बन्ध, प्रविधिमा साझेदारी र इन्डो-प्यासिफिकमा भारतको भूमिका आदिले उच्च प्राथमिकता पाएका छन्।
बिहीवार ह्वाइट हाउसमा औपचारिक स्वागत, राष्ट्रपति जो बाइडनसँग प्रत्यक्ष वार्ता, राजकीय रात्रि भोज, अमेरिकी संसद्को संयुक्त बैठकलाई सम्बोधन भ्रमणका महत्त्वपूर्ण पक्ष रहे।
मोदी र बाइडनले विश्वका दुई ठूला प्रजातन्त्रका साझा हित र आकाङ्क्षाबारे खुलेर प्रशंसा गरे।

उत्साहपूर्ण स्वागत
औपचारिक वार्तापछि संयुक्त पत्रकार सम्मेलनमा बाइडनले पारस्परिक साझेदारी "इतिहासमा कुनै पनि समयभन्दा बलियो, नजिक र अधिक गतिशील," रहेको बताए। मोदीले दुई देशबीच रणनीतिक साझेदारीको नयाँ अध्याय शुरू भएकोमा जोड दिए।
मोदी सरकारको मानवअधिकार रेकर्डको विरोध गर्दै केही डेमोक्रेटिक सांसदहरूले संयुक्त बैठकमा मोदीको सम्बोधन बहिष्कार गरे तापनि भारतीय प्रधानमन्त्रीले त्यहाँ उत्साहपूर्ण स्वागत पाए। सम्बन्धको नयाँ बिहानीले अमेरिका र भारतको मात्र होइन, विश्वको भाग्यलाई पनि आकार दिनेछ भनी उनले सांसदहरूलाई बताए।
भ्रमणका क्रममा रक्षा, उच्च प्रविधि, स्वास्थ्य, वातावरण, अन्तरिक्ष, ऊर्जा र भिसा लगायतका क्षेत्रमा भएका सम्झौताहरूले अझ बलियो साझेदारीको ढाँचा उपलब्ध गराएको छ ।
रुस-युक्रेन युद्धको बीचमा असंलग्नताको नयाँ रूप खोज्ने प्रयास गरिरहेको 'ग्लोबल साउथ'को महत्त्वपूर्ण अङ्ग भारतलाई बाइडनले अमेरिकी साझेदारीमा अझ बलियोसँग गाँसेको प्रचार गर्न सक्नेछन्।
उता विश्व मञ्चमा भारतको क्षण आइपुगेको देखाउन मोदीसँग पर्याप्त आधार हुनेछ। दुवै देशमा आगामी वर्ष चुनाव हुने सन्दर्भमा यस्ता दाबीको महत्त्व बेग्लै हुनेछ।

‘चिनियाँ खतरा’ को चर्चा
‘चिनियाँ खतरा’ प्रत्यक्षरूपमा संयुक्त वक्तव्यमा समाविष्ट छैन, तर भ्रमणभरि चीन सान्दर्भिक रहेको थियो। वाशिङ्टन र नयाँ दिल्लीले बेइजिङको बढ्दो विश्वव्यापी महत्त्वाकाङ्क्षाहरूको सामना गर्ने तरिकाहरू खोज्दै गर्दा यो भ्रमण भएको छ। ती दुवै देशले चीनको प्रभुत्वमा रहेको एशिया वा चिनियाँ जबरजस्तीको अधीनमा रहेको इन्डो-प्यासिफिक क्षेत्र नहोस् भन्ने उद्देश्य राख्छन्।
जर्ज बुश र बाराक ओबामा प्रशासनका समयमा संयुक्त राज्यले एशियामा चीनलाई प्रभुत्व जमाउनबाट रोक्न भारतको शक्ति निर्माण गर्न मद्दत पुर्‍याउनेतर्फ ध्यान केन्द्रित गर्‍यो।
डोनाल्ड ट्रम्प प्रशासनको समयमा अमेरिका-चीन सम्बन्ध बिग्रियो, जुन अवधिमा बेइजिङ र नयाँ दिल्ली बीचको सम्बन्धमा पनि गिरावट आएको थियो। त्यसपछि संयुक्त राज्यले चीनको बढ्दो शक्तिलाई नियन्त्रणमा राख्न भारतलाई अझ ठूलो सैन्य भूमिकातर्फ लैजाने अपेक्षा साथ सहयोग गर्न थाल्यो।
मोदीलाई विकासोन्मुख देशहरूको आवाजको रूपमा लिइन्छ जुन संयुक्त राज्य र चीनको बीचमा छनोट गर्न बाध्य हुन चाहँदैनन्।
उनी आफ्नो सरकारको मुस्लिम अल्पसङ्ख्यक आबादीप्रतिको व्यवहार र प्रेस तथा राजनीतिक प्रतिपक्षमाथिको अनुदारताका कारण आलोचनाको विषय पनि हुन्। वाशिङटनले ती चिन्ताहरूलाई पन्छाएर नयाँ दिल्लीसँगको रणनीतिक सहयोगलाई महत्त्व दिएको प्रस्टै छ।
भारत-अमेरिकी साझेदारी हालैका वर्षहरूमा उल्लेखनीय रूपमा बढेको भए पनि, प्रत्येक देश यसतर्फ फरक बिन्दुबाट आएका छन्। त्यो तथ्यले मोदीको भ्रमणको मध्यम र दीर्घकालीन प्रभावलाई कम अनुकूल बनाउन सक्नेछ।
भलै गत वर्ष अमेरिका र भारतले भारतको उत्तराखण्ड राज्यमा चीनसँगको विवादित सिमाना नजिकै संयुक्त सैन्य अभ्यास गरेका थिए।
भारत पनि बाइडनको १४ सदस्यीय इन्डो-प्यासिफिक इकोनोमिक फ्रेमवर्कमा सामेल भयो। भारत र अमेरिकाबीचको वस्तु तथा सेवाको व्यापार गत वर्ष १९० अर्ब डलर पुगेको थियो र अमेरिका अहिले भारतको सबैभन्दा ठूलो व्यापारिक साझेदार हो। दुई देशका कम्पनीहरूले एक अर्कामा महत्त्वपूर्ण लगानी गरेका छन्।
गत ज्यानुअरीमा भारत र अमेरिका दुवै देशहरूमा उच्च प्रविधि उत्पादन र सेवाहरूको सह-विकास र सह-उत्पादनमा नेतृत्व गर्ने टेक्नोलोजी मूल्य-शृङ्खला साझेदारीको लागि मार्ग प्रशस्त गर्न क्रिटिकल एन्ड इमर्जिङ टेक्नोलोजीहरूमा यूएस-भारत पहल (आईसीईटी) को सुरुवातको घोषणा गरियो।
अमेरिकी सरकारी एवं व्यापारिक अधिकारीहरूले प्रमुख उत्पादित वस्तुहरूको आपूर्तिका लागि चीनमाथिको अमेरिकी निर्भरता कम गर्न खोज्दा भारत प्रमुख विकल्प हुन सक्छ।
तथापि चीनको शक्ति र त्यसको भौगोलिक निकटतालाई ध्यानमा राख्दै, नयाँ दिल्लीले बेइजिङसँगको कुनै पनि अमेरिकी टकराबमा आफूलाई संलग्न गराउने सम्भावना छैन जसले आफ्नो सुरक्षालाई प्रत्यक्ष रूपमा खतरामा पार्दैन।

भारतको सबैभन्दा खतरनाक प्रतिद्वन्द्वीलाई कस्तो सन्देश
चीन भारतको सबैभन्दा खतरनाक प्रतिद्वन्द्वी बनेको भएता पनि, नयाँ दिल्ली अझै पनि बेइजिङसँग स्थायी सम्बन्ध तोड्ने कुनै पनि काम नगर्न खोज्छ।
भारतीय नीति निर्माताहरूले चिनियाँ र भारतीय राष्ट्रिय शक्तिबीचको असमानतालाई स्वीकार गर्छन्।
नयाँ दिल्लीको सापेक्षिक कमजोरीले बेइजिङलाई उक्साउनबाट जोगिन बाध्य बनाउँछ।
दुई देशको लामो सीमालाई हेर्दा चीनले विभिन्न तरिकाले भारतीय सुरक्षालाई खतरामा पार्न सक्छ भन्ने कुरा भारतलाई थाहा छ।
दीर्घकालीन रूपमा यी विरोधाभासहरू अझ कडा हुन सक्छन्। संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिकाको लागि, भारत एशियामा एक विशाल, निर्णायक शक्ति हो जुन महत्त्वपूर्ण समुद्री मार्गहरूमा बस्छ र चीनसँग लामो, विवादित भूमि सीमा साझा गर्दछ।
भारतको लागि संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका उन्नत प्रविधि, शिक्षा र लगानीको आकर्षक स्रोत हो।
भारतको अमेरिकासँग काम गर्ने इच्छा परिस्थितिबाट जन्मेको हो, विश्वासबाट होइन। स्वतन्त्र रूपमा खतराहरूसँग सामना गर्न आफ्नै राष्ट्रिय क्षमताहरू निर्माण गर्न अमेरिकी सहयोग प्राप्त गर्नु भारतको प्राथमिकता रहेको देखिन्छ।
सम्बन्धको सैद्धान्तिक आधार पनि देखिएको जस्तो दरिलो नहुन सक्छ।
कति अमेरिकी नीति-निर्माताहरूको विचारमा साझा लोकतान्त्रिक सिद्धान्तहरूका आधारमा व्यापक रणनीतिक महत्त्वसहितको स्थायी अमेरिका-भारत सम्बन्धको भविष्य उज्ज्वल रहेको छ।विश्वका दुई ठूला लोकतन्त्रबीच समान विश्वव्यापी दृष्टिकोण र चासोहरू छन्।
तदनुसार, वाशिङटनले उदार अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय व्यवस्थाभित्र भारतको अडानलाई बलियो बनाउन खोजेको छ र आवश्यक पर्दा विश्व प्रणालीको रक्षार्थ उसको योगदान खोजेको छ।

गठबन्धन बन्न लागेको हो?
निश्चय पनि अमेरिका-भारत सम्बन्धमा विगत चौथाइ शताब्दीमा व्यापक परिवर्तन भएको छ, तर त्यो परिवर्तनले अन्य निकटतम अमेरिकी गठबन्धनहरू जस्तै साझेदारी प्रदान गरेको छैन।
भारतीय नेताहरूले लामो समयदेखि विदेश नीति स्वतन्त्रतालाई विश्वमा भारतको दृष्टिकोणको केन्द्रीय विशेषताको रूपमा प्राथमिकता दिएका छन्।
हुन त तटस्थता अब व्यवहार्य विकल्प नरहेको भन्दै भारत भित्रै आवाज बढिरहेको छ ।
यो दृष्टिकोण अनुसार दक्षिण एसिया र अन्य क्षेत्रमा चीनको राजनीतिक र आर्थिक प्रगतिले भारतको हितलाई कमजोर बनाउँछ।
भारतलाई खुफिया जानकारी आदान-प्रदान गरेर मद्दत गर्न सक्ने भरपर्दो बाह्य साझेदार बिना आफ्नो अपर्याप्त प्रतिरक्षा क्षमता माझ नयाँ दिल्ली बेइजिङको षड्यन्त्रको चपेटामा पर्न सक्नेछ।
तर भारत कुनै पनि महाशक्तिको कनिष्ठ साझेदार बन्नबाट जोगिन चाहन्छ। बहु ध्रुवीय संसारमा आफैँमा एक ध्रुव बन्न चाहने नयाँ दिल्लीले विदेश नीतिमा आफ्नो महत्त्वपूर्ण 'रणनीतिक स्वायत्तता' लाई कमजोर पार्ने सम्भावना देखिँदैन।
चीनसँगको विवादित सीमामा भएका झडपको बाबजुद, भारतले अस्ट्रेलिया, जापान र संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिकासँगको आफ्नो सुरक्षा साझेदारी — जसलाई क्वाड भनिन्छ — लाई चीन विरुद्धमा अँगाल्न आनाकानी गरेको छ ।
युक्रेनमा रुसी आक्रमणको निन्दा गर्न कडा इन्कार गरेकोमा मोदी र उनका विदेशमन्त्री सुब्रह्मण्यम जयशंकर दुवैको भारतभित्र प्रशंसा गरिएको छ। तटस्थताको यो अडान, उनीहरूले तर्क गर्ने गरेका छन्, भारतको हितलाई राम्रोसँग सेवा गर्दछ।
त्यसो त कतिले औपचारिक गठबन्धनको जमाना जान लागेको एवं खुकुलो साझेदारी नै भविष्यको बाटो रहने बताउँछन्। तर त्यसमा अस्पष्टता र अनिश्चितताको वर्चस्व रहने खतरा नकार्न सकिँदैन।

नेपाललाई कस्ता चुनौती
नेपालमा नयाँ दिल्ली र बेइजिङ पहिले नै भू-रणनीतिक प्रतिद्वन्द्वमा फसेका छन्।
अमेरिका र भारतबीच सहकार्यभन्दा विरोधाभास रहेमा नेपालले थप चुनौतीहरूको सामना गर्नुपर्नेछ।
भारतले नेपालमा चीनलाई उसले चीनको दबाबको सामना गर्न सक्ने ठाउँसम्म मात्रै चुनौती दिनेछ। त्यो प्रयासमा अमेरिकी सहयोग खोज्दा वा पाउँदा भारतले नचाहेको स्तरमा तनाव बढाउन सक्छ।
चीनसँगको प्रतिस्पर्धामा अमेरिका भारतको पक्षमा खुलेर नआउँदाको अवस्थामा नेपालले तीन मोर्चामा कठिनाइको सामना गर्नु पर्ने हुनेछ।
यो अस्थिर त्रिभुज माझ नेपालले आफूलाई कति राम्रोसँग डोर्‍याउन सक्छ त्यसले राष्ट्रिय स्थायित्व एवं दीर्घकालीन हित निर्धारण गर्नेछ।

https://www.bbc.com/nepali/articles/c723xj55gngo

Excerpts: ‘Democracy in Turns: A Political Account of Nepal’

Excerpts from the last chapter of Sanjay Upadhya’s new book Democracy in Turns: A Political Account of Nepal which looks back at the country's struggle to construct a new democratic identity under 7 constitutions in 7 decades. 

https://nepalitimes.com/here-now/the-story-so-far

प्रचण्डको भ्रमणपछि नेपाल-भारत सम्बन्धमा अविश्वास बढ्यो कि घट्यो?

‘द राज लिभ्स: इण्डिया इन नेपाल’ पुस्तकका लेखक सञ्जय उपाध्यायले प्रधानमन्त्रीले जटिल सीमा विवादबारेको गतिरोध फुकाउने प्रयास गरेको हुनसक्ने भएपनि त्यसले गम्भीर प्रश्नहरू उब्जाएको बताए।

उनी भन्छन्, “प्रधानमन्त्रीले यसबारेमा नेपालीहरूलाई बहस गर्ने मौका नदिईकनै आफ्नो धारणा राखे। यति दीर्घकालीन महत्त्वको विषयमा जुन हल्का तरिकाले अघि बढ्ने प्रयास प्रधानमन्त्रीले गरे यसले उनको कूटनीतिक सामर्थ्यमा प्रश्नहरू खडा गरेको छ।”

[प्रबुद्ध समूहको] प्रतिवेदनलाई गरिएको उपेक्षालाई एउटा दृष्टान्तको रूपमा प्रस्तुत गर्दै लेखक उपाध्यायले थपे, “यो भ्रमणले जबाफ दिनुभन्दा धेरै प्रश्नहरू खडा गरेकाले दुईपक्षीय सम्बन्धमा आपसी अविश्वास र आशङ्का निरन्तर व्याप्त रहेको छ। प्रबुद्ध समूहको प्रतिवेदनलाई पूर्ण रूपमा उपेक्षा गरिनुबाट ती प्रश्नहरू खतरनाक रूपमा प्रकट भएका छन्। एकदमै धार्मिक रङ्ग दिइएको हाम्रा माओवादी केन्द्रका नेताको उज्जैनस्थित एउटा मन्दिरको भ्रमणले उनको वैचारिक र राजनीतिक कदलाई थप कमजोर बनाएको छ।”

उज्जैनको महाकालेश्वर मन्दिर भ्रमण गर्ने आफ्नो निर्णयको बचाउ गर्दै उनले निम्तालुको चाहना र आफ्नो पनि इच्छामा उक्त धार्मिक स्थलको भ्रमण भएको उल्लेख गरेका थिए।

उपाध्याय भन्छन्, “[आफ्ना समकक्षी मोदीसँग तीन पटक एक्लै एक्लै] छलफलमा उठेका कुराको गोप्यता र त्यसलाई महत्त्व दिएर प्रस्तुत गर्ने हाम्रा प्रधानमन्त्रीको तत्परताले सम्झौता र सहमतिहरूमाथि नकारात्मक प्रभाव पारिदिएको छ। पुराना जटिलताहरू हल नगरी नयाँ खाका तय गर्नु बुद्धिमत्तापूर्ण मार्ग होइन।”

विभिन्न सम्झौतासहितलाई देखाएर भ्रमण सफल भएको निष्कर्ष सुनाउने तत्परता देखाउनु एउटा कुरा भएपनि नेपाल भारत सम्बन्धमा यस्ता प्रतिकात्मक परिस्थितिहरूभन्दा ठोस परिणाम आवश्यक भएको उनले सुनाए।

उपाध्याय बदलिँदो क्षेत्रीय, रणनीतिक र सुरक्षा वातावरणका माझ पश्चिमा शक्तिहरूको समर्थनमा भारतले 'अनुचित' चिनियाँ प्रभाव नेपालमा कमजोर बनाउने रणनीति लिएको बताउँछन्।

उनले भने, "यो अवधारणाको समस्या भनेको हो अरूले अनुचित ठानेको कुरा नेपालको दृष्टिकोणमा सधैँ त्यस्तो नहुन सक्छ। नेपालका दुई विशाल छिमेकीमध्ये चीन एउटा हो र नेपालले सम्भव भएसम्म आपसी लाभ हुने गरी ऊसँग गहिरो सम्बन्ध राख्न चाहन्छ।"

उपाध्यायले भारतीय र पश्चिमा नीतिगत मञ्चहरूका माध्यमबाट नेपाललाई कुनै पनि हिसाबले संस्थागत र स्वायत्त रूपमा निर्णय गर्नबाट वञ्चित गर्नु क्षेत्रीय शान्ति र स्थिरताका निम्ति उपयुक्त नहुने चेतावनी दिए।

उनले थपे, "पश्चिमासँगको भारतको निकटता र नेपाललाई दक्षिण एशियासँग जोड्ने पुलका रूपमा जोड दिएर प्रस्तुत गर्ने चिनियाँ धारणाले नेपालका लागि सहज समय नरहेको देखिन्छ। यस्ता विशाल चुनौतीमाझ हाम्रो राजनीतिक नेतृत्वबाट देखाइनुपर्ने संवेदनशीलता प्रधानमन्त्री प्रचण्डको भारत भ्रमणमा देखिएन।"  

The Sanjay Upadhya Quintet

 

Democracy in Turns: A Political Account of Nepal

As Nepal struggles to construct a new democratic identity under its seventh constitution in as many decades, the wider machinations and manipulations that have dominated politics ever since the country emerged from the unification of petty principalities in the mid-eighteenth century continue to cast a long shadow, SANJAY UPADHYA argues.

DEMOCRACY IN TURNS critically examines the country’s past political experiments – complete with all key players and proceedings – in an effort to understand modern Nepali democracy and envision its future.

Democracy in Turns: A Political Account of Nepal on Amazon.com

Coming Soon: ‘Democracy in Turns: A Political Account of Nepal’ by Sanjay Upadhya (Kathmandu: FinePrint Books)

 

Coming Soon: ‘Democracy in Turns: A Political Account of Nepal’ by Sanjay Upadhya 

(Kathmandu: FinePrint Books)

Two Books on Nepali Political History Coming Out Soon

Two books on Nepali political history coming out one after another from FinePrint Books.

One, ‘Democracy in Turns’ by Sanjay Upadhya, coming out this month and the other, ‘Plains of Discontent’ by Max Mørch, coming out next month.

Coming Soon: ‘Democracy in Turns: A Political Account of Nepal’ by Sanjay Upadhya (Kathmandu: FinePrint Books)

भूराजनीतिक चुनौतीप्रति संवेदनशील हुँदाहुँदै पनि समग्र नेतृत्व भूमरीमा फसेझैं छ: सञ्जय उपाध्याय [अन्तर्वार्ता]

नेपाल सरकारले पौष २७ गते पृथ्वी जयन्तीमा राष्ट्रिय बिदा दियो। पृथ्वीनारायण शाहले नेपाललाई दुई ढुंगाबीचको तरुल भनेको ठानिन्छ। झण्डै अढाई सय वर्षपछि अहिले नेपालका विदेश नीतिसम्बन्धी चुनौतीहरु के कस्ता छन्? यीनै विषयवस्तुमा रहेर नेपाल लाइभ समूहका सल्लाहकार सम्पादक भगीरथ योगीले अमेरिकाको मिशिगनमा बस्दै आएका पत्रकार, लेखक तथा राजनीतिक विश्लेषक सञ्जय उपाध्याय सँग गरेको कुराकानीको सम्पादित अंश: 

दुईवटा प्रमुख कम्युनिष्ट पार्टीहरू मिलेर नाटकीय रुपमा बनेको प्रचण्ड नेतृत्वको सरकारलाई हाम्रा छिमेकीहरुले कसरी हेरिरहेका छन्?  
मेरो आफ्नो विश्लेषण भन्नुपर्दा चीनबाट सुरु गरौं। यो सरकार गठनमा चीनको के कति कस्तो हात थियो वा रह्यो? रहेन? त्यसबाहेक पनि चिनियाँ सरकारको एक किसिमको प्रतिक्रिया आयो। नाका खोल्ने, रेलको सम्भाव्यता अध्ययनका लागि  डेलिगेसन पठाउनेदेखि लिएर मलाई प्रमुख दुईवटा कुराहरु लागिरहेको छ। 

चीनलाई यो गठबन्धन सरकार बनेको एक किसिमको खुसी लागेको हुनुपर्छ। चिनियाँहरु साधारणतया नबोलेर काममार्फत् आफ्नो प्रतिक्रिया दिने गर्दछन्। दोस्रो यो हतारोले कस्तो लाग्छ भने यो विषयमा चिनियाँहरु अझै पूर्णरुपमा आश्वस्त छैनन् सरकार पूरै कार्यकाल चल्छ भन्ने बारेमा।

पोखरा अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय विमानस्थललाई ‘बेल्ट एण्ड रोड इनीशियटिभ’ (बीआरआई) सँग जोड्नेदेखि लिएर ग्लोबल सेक्युरिटी इनीशियटिभसँग जोड्ने उनीहरुको प्रयास, पहल आउनुको मतलब जे जति किसीमका आफ्ना स्वार्थ अनुकूलका सन्धि, सम्झौता, बुझाइहरु अहिले गराइहाल्न सकियो भने भरे भोलि यो सरकार के होला? कस्तो होला? त्यो अवस्थामा पनि सुरक्षित धरातलमा उभिरहौं भन्ने चिनियाँको एउटा भावना जस्तो पनि लाग्छ मलाई।

जहाँसम्म भारतसँगको कुरा छ, भारत अघिल्लो गठबन्धनको सरकार नै निरन्तरता होस् भन्ने चाहन्थ्यो। तर मलाई यस्तो पनि लाग्दछ कि भारतले धेरै पश्चिम निकट गठबन्धनको सरकार बनेको अवस्थामा, नेपालमा चीनको यसै उग्र उपस्थिति भइरहेको अवस्थामा अलिकति चीनलाई पनि चिढ्याएर जाने खालको सरकार रह्यो भने, त्यसको रियाक्सन जुन भारतलाई पर्न आउने हो, भारतले एक्लै खेप्नु पर्ने खालको बुझाइ हुनसक्छ। त्यसबाट मुक्त हुन यो सरकारलाई खासै इच्छा नहुँदा नहुँदै पनि सुरुमा समर्थन दिएर पछि नेपाली कांग्रेसबाट बाह्य सहयोगमार्फत् पनि त्यो नाटकीय रुपमा आएको देख्दछु म। त्यसलाई खुला रुपमा दिएको हुनुपर्छ भन्ने मलाई लाग्छ। 

तपाईंले प्रचण्ड नेतृत्वको सरकारलाई नेपाली कांग्रेसले बाह्य रुपमा गरेको सहयोगको कुरा उठाइहाल्नु भयो। नेपाली कांग्रेसको त्यस्तो निर्णयका पछाडी नेपालभित्रको आन्तरिक राजनीतिक समीकरण प्रमुख हो जस्तो लाग्छ कि नेपालको भूराजनीति?
मलाई त भूराजनीति नै हो भन्ने लाग्दछ। दक्षिणी छिमेकीको संलग्नता र पश्चिमतीरका अकाशे छिमेकीको पनि यो सरकारलाई गुड ह्यूमरमा राख्नको लागि अलिकति प्रयास भएकै आधारमा हो कि जस्तो लाग्छ। किन भने नेपाली कांग्रेसभित्रका प्रभावशाली आवाजहरुले विरोध गर्दा–गर्दै पनि यसमा बाह्य कारणले नै प्रमुखता पाएको भन्ने लाग्छ।

नेपालमा कम्युनिष्ट नेतृत्वको सरकार बन्यो भने भारत र अमेरिकाले रुचाउँदैनन् पनि भनिन्छ। यो भनाइ कत्तिको सत्य हो?
कम्युनिष्ट सरकार रुचाउँदैनन् भन्ने व्याख्या चाहिँ कत्तिको कम्युनिष्ट रहे हाम्रा पार्टीहरु? भन्नेसँग जोडिनुपर्ने हुन्छ। अब नामको मात्र कम्युनिष्ट भए परम्परागत कम्युनिज्मको भाष्य र सिद्धान्त हेर्दाखेरी। त्यसभित्र भारत र पश्चिमा मुलुकहरुले आफ‍ूलाई उभ्याउन सजिलो मार्ग पनि पाएका छन्। जसले गर्दा उनीहरुलाई त्यति असजिलो हुन्छ जस्तो लाग्दैन। शितयुद्धकालीन अवस्था जस्तो कम्युनिष्टहरुको विरोधको अवस्था छैन। 

नेपालमा नयाँ सरकार गठन भएसँगै चीन सरकारले बन्द गरेको एकतर्फी नाका खोलियो। रेल्वे परियोजनाको अध्ययन पनि अगाडि बढेको छ। यो केवल संयोग मात्रै हो कि? चीनले केही संकेत पनि गर्न खोजेको हो?
यस विषयमा चीनको संकेत प्रष्ट रुपमा बुझ्न सकिन्छ। कम्युनिष्ट नेतृत्वको मान्छेहरु पनि आफ्नो निजी कुराकानीमा भन्ने गर्दछन् कि चीन सरकारले ‘रेसिप्रसीटी’ बलियो बनाउनका लागि त्यस्तो केही गर्दो रहेनछ। एक किसिमको गुनासो सन् २००६ पछि, खास गरि माओवादीको पहिलो सरकारको पतनसँग जोडिएको कुराहरु सुनिन्थे। चीनका पनि आफ्ना गुनासा छन्। चीनले यही बेलामा हतारो गर्दा उसलाई दुई किसिमको फाइदा भयो। प्रतिबद्धता पनि गराइहालौं। कम्युनिष्ट घटक आएकोमा खुसी छौं है हामी भन्ने किसिमले एउटा संकेत दिएको र अब तिमीहरुको पालो हो। तिमीहरुले आफ्नो तर्फबाट जुन सम्झौताहरुलाई अगाडि बढाउनु पर्ने आवश्यकता छ, त्यसमा पहल सुरु गर्छौं भन्ने आश राख्दै संकेत दिएको जस्तो लाग्छ। 

नेपालको सन्दर्भमा कुरा गर्दा चीन तिब्बतको सुरक्षाबारे बढी संवेदनशील छ भन्ने सुनिन्छ। नेपालबाट चीनले अपेक्षा गरेको खास कुरा के हो?
चीनका जनमत निर्माताहरुको कुरा सुन्यो भने, व्यापार, भौतिक संरचनाहरु, दक्षिण एसियाली क्षेत्रसँगको एउटा पुल  (ल्याण्ड ब्रिज) पश्चिमतिरबाट पाकिस्तान पूर्वतिर नेपालबाट गर्न सक्छौं भन्ने उनीहरुको ध्येय र आकांक्षा देखिन्छ। 

तर अल्टिमेट्ली गएर बुझ्दा चाहिँ तिब्बत नै हो। तिब्बत किन हो भन्दा विस्तारै वर्तमान दलाई लामाको शेषपछि नयाँ दलाई लामाको चयनको कुरा पनि आउँछ। त्यसमा चीनभित्र, चीन बाहिरबाट कसलाई बनाउने भन्ने आफ्नै प्रक्रियामा सबै लागिपर्ने देखिन्छ। वृहत् तिब्बती परम्पराको सन्दर्भमा हेर्दा आज एउटा दलाई लामा गएपछि अर्का दलाई लामा भोलिपल्ट आउने प्रक्रिया थिएन। यदि त्यो कायम रह्यो भने उनीहरु तीन चार वर्षको प्रक्रियामा जान्छन्।

उत्तराधिकारी बालक यही चाहिँ हो भन्ने पत्ता लगाएर नयाँ दलाई लामा घोषणा गर्ने हिसाबले त्यो प्रकृयाबाट चयन गरिएका दलाई लामालाई बाह्य सरकारहरुले कति मान्लान्? आफ्नो ठाउँमा छँदैछ। तर त्यो नेपालका लागि तत्कालीन अवस्था हुन्छ। जसमा चीनलाई सत्ता (रिजिम) को सुरक्षा खतरा छ भन्ने आयो कम्युनिष्ट पार्टीको कंग्रेसमा।

त्योसँग जोड्दा उसको सीमा सुरक्षा नै तिब्बत मामलाबाट नेपाललाई उचाल्न सक्छ। ताइवान लगायतका ५-७ वटा विषयबाट चीनलाई खतरा महसुस भएको देखिन्छ। त्यसमा नेपालबाट आउने तिब्बतको मामलामा सीमा सुरक्षा, आवत जावतको प्रक्रिया नबढोस् भनेर त्यहाँ स्थानीय रुपमा पनि प्रदर्शन नबढोस् भन्नेमा चीन चनाखो देखिन्छ। नेपाल पश्चिमी अजेण्डामा लागेर एउटा प्रजातान्त्रिक मुलुकले अर्को प्रजातान्त्रिक मुलुकलाई दिने सहयोगको आधारमा नहोस्।

तत्कालका लागि तिब्बतको सुरक्षाका लागि यो तीन/चार/पाँच वर्ष चाहिँ नेपालबाट त्यही नै सहयोग प्रत्याभूति सहयोग खोजेको भान हुन्छ। 

भारतमा आगामी एक-डेढ वर्षभित्र अयोध्यामा राममन्दिरको निर्माण सम्पन्न हुन गैरहेको छ। त्यसलगत्तै सन् २०२४ को मे महिनामा आम निर्वाचन पनि हुँदैछ। यो सन्दर्भमा यी दुईवटा ठूला परिघटनाको नेपालको राजनीतिलाई तलसम्म पनि प्रभावित गर्ने आकलन पनि छ। खास गरेर नेपाललाई हिन्दू राष्ट्र बनाउनु पर्छ भन्ने माग चर्केर जाने सम्भावना कत्तिको देख्नुहुन्छ?
आन्तरिक कुरा हेर्ने हो भने नेपालमा हिन्दू राष्ट्र होस् भन्ने जमात पनि बढ्दैछ। त्यसमा मलजल हाल्ने कुरा छँदै होला, त्यसलाई नकार्न सकिँदैन। नेपालमा हिन्दू राष्ट्र बनाउने कुरामा भारतले अभियान नै चलाउने उनीहरुको पार्टी पंक्तिमा बृहत् संघ परिवारमा बलियो जमात छ।

भारतमा पार्टीगत हिसाबले, समूहगत हिसाबले आस्थागत रुपमा त्यो माहोल बन्ने छ। तर भारतले राज्यको रुपमा हाम फालिहाल्नु पर्ने कुरामा जुन सकस देखिएको छ। ती आनाकानीले यीनिहरुलाई संकोच पनि परिराखेको छ। हाम्रो आन्तरिक मामलामा त्यसले के असर पार्ला? जुन अहिलेको राजनीतिक व्यवस्था छ।

त्यसले हिन्दू धर्मलाई ‘मौन समर्थन’आफ्नो पार्टीगत हिसाबले दिइराखेको छ। तर नेपालभित्र चाहिँ हिन्दूधर्मको अलिकति राजतन्त्रसँग सम्बन्ध भइराखेको अवस्थामा नेपालका पार्टीहरुले कसरी रियाक्ट गर्लान् त? भन्ने चीजहरुमा मान्छेहरु सचेत छन्। त्यसको व्याख्या नै गर्ने हो भने राजतन्त्र बाहिरिएको अवस्थामा मिलेर शक्ति बाँडफाँट गर्ने बानी परेका पार्टीहरुले एक कदम अगाडि बढेर राजतन्त्रसँग नजिकिने प्रस्ताव नमानि हाल्लान्।

जबसम्म भारतमा राज्य र पार्टीको एक किसिमको तादात्म्य स्थापना हुँदैन तबसम्म भारतले सिधै पहल गर्ने हिम्मत गर्दैन। पछाडिबाट गर्ने सहयोग जुन छ, त्यसमा पनि ‘ल्युकवार्म सपोर्ट’ नै रहिरहने छ जस्तो लाग्छ मलाई। 

अहिले हिन्दू गणतन्त्रको कुरा पनि आइराखेको छ। तपाईंको २०२१मा प्रकाशित पुस्तक ‘व्याकफायर इन नेपाल - हाउ इन्डिया लस्ट द प्लट टू चाइना’ मा लेख्नु भएको छ कि सन् २००५ मा दिल्लीको मध्यस्थतामा तत्कालीन सात दलहरु र प्रतिबन्धित नेकपा माओवादीबीच दिल्लीमा जुन किसिमको १२ बुँदे समझदारी बन्यो र नेपालमा संविधानसभाको चुनाव भयो। राजतन्त्रको अन्त्य भयो त्यसपछि नेपालमा चिनियाँ प्रभाव बढ्न गएको कुरा उल्लेख गर्नु भएको छ। के भारतीय जनता पार्टीले ‘कोर्स करेक्सन’ गर्न खोजेको जस्तो लाग्छ तपाईंलाई?

‘कोर्स करेक्सन’ गर्न खोजेको हो। उनीहरु डाइरेक्ट आएर हिन्दू गणतन्त्रको कुरा गरिराखेका छन्। त्यसमा पनि मेरो आफ्नो विचार के छ भने, हिन्दू गणतन्त्र भन्ने चीजको पछाडि गएर त्यसको भायबिलिटी के कस्तो हुन्छ? त्यसलाई हामीले कुनै पोप नभएको अवस्थामा धर्म गुरु भारतीय शंकराचार्यलाई नै मान्न पर्ने हो कि? योगी आदित्यनाथ जस्ता सन्यासीहरुलाई मान्न पर्ने हो कि? भन्ने यावत् सवालहरु उठ्लान्।

त्यो कुरा उठिसकेपछि फेरि अखण्ड भारतसँगै टाँसिन जाने पो हो कि यो? अल्टीमेट्ली हिन्दू गणतन्त्र भन्ने हिसाबले नेपालमा एक किसिमको भाष्य जन्माइएला राजतन्त्रवादीहरुबाट पनि। गणतन्त्रवादीहरुबाट पनि त्यो चीज उठाइला। त्यसमा बहस हुनसक्ला।

कोर्स करेक्सन भनिए पनि भारतीय जनता पार्टीले अलिकति गणतन्त्रको कुरा गर्छन्। तर राजतन्त्रको विषयमा प्रत्यक्ष कुरा गर्न सकिराखेका छैनन। मैले चाहिँ किताबमा के उल्लेख गरेको छु भने त्यो चाहिँ उनीहरुले गल्ती गरिहाले। तर अब के गर्ने? नेपालमा राजतन्त्र मान्नेहरुले सांकेतिक रुपमा राजतन्त्र गएको छैन भन्छन्। एक बेलाको राजा सधै राजा हुन्छन् भन्ने कुरा ठिकै होला। राजा पनि ठाउँ–ठाउँमा जाँदा जनताको सहयोग पाइराखेकै छन्। जनमत पनि होला।

तर सन् २००६ पछि राजतन्त्रलाई जसरी ओझेलमा पार्दै पार्दै त्यसको इन्सिट्युस्नल रिजिलियन्सको लागि स्टकस्चरहरु चाहिने थियो (सेना, सरकार एवं शहरीया मध्यम वर्ग इत्यादि) कत्तिको छ? यस्ता कुराको आकलन भारतीयहरुले गरिराखेकै पनि होलान्। राजतन्त्र फर्काउँदा कत्तिको समस्या हल हुने हो? खरो रुपमा भन्नु पर्दा डाडु,पन्यू आफ्नै हातमा हुँदा खेरी अफ्ठ्यारो अवस्थामा गुज्रिरहेको राजतन्त्रले के कति गर्न सक्छन् भन्ने चीजको लेखा जोखा हामीले खुला रुपमा गर्न नसकेको अवस्थामा चाहिँ कोर्स करेक्सनको बाटो के?

यतिका वर्ष अभ्यास गरिसकेको संविधान छ। विभिन्न तहकासमेत दुई, दुईवटा त चुनाव नै भइसके। यसको प्रकिया के हो भन्ने कुरामा यो एक किसिमको अन्योल र अस्पष्टताको सन्दर्भमा ‘कोर्स करेक्सन’ एउटा खाका, एउटा विचार आकांक्षा भएता पनि कसरी गर्ने भन्ने कुराले अल्झाइराखेको जस्तो देखिन्छ। 

तेस्रो छिमेकी अर्थात् आकाशे छिमेकी अमेरिकाको कुरा गरौं। नेपालको संसद्ले एमसीसी परियोजना पारित गर्‍यो। सुरक्षासम्बन्धी परियोजना एसपीपीलाई अगाडि बढाउन सक्दैनौं, त्यसमा भाग लिन सक्दैनौं भनिराखेको छ। आगामी दिनमा अमेरिकाले आफ्नो सुरक्षा स्वार्थका कारण नेपालमाथि थप दबाब दिने सम्भावना कति देख्नुहुन्छ?
सूक्ष्म रुपमा अध्ययन गर्दा नेपाललाई उनीहरुले बदलिँदो विश्व व्यवस्थामा सेन्ट्र्ल एसियामा किर्गिस्तान, नेपाल, अफ्रिकामा जिबुटीजस्ता देशहरुको भूराजनीतिक महत्व बढ्दै आइरहेको छ। अर्को क्षेत्रबाट हेर्दा चिनियाँलाई सुरक्षा चासोका बारेमा नेपालले जे गरिदियोस् भन्ने उसको आकांक्षा छ त्यहि, त्यही चीजमा अमेरिकाले दबाब हाल्ने स्थिति देख्दछु म। तिब्बती स्वतन्त्रता नै अमेरिकाको उद्देश्य देखिँदैन।

चिनियाँलाई तिब्बतमै अल्मलाई राखेमा उता ताइवानमा प्रेसर हट्ने, विश्व व्यवस्थामा चीनको प्रभाव कम गराउने, उनीहरुको राज्यको व्यवहारलाई तह लगाउने किसिमको अमेरिकी गतिविधि बढ्दै जाने छ। दलाई लामाको सक्सेसन उनीहरुका लागि ठूलो अवसर पनि भएको देखिन्छ।

जुन नियमित रुपमा अमेरिकाले चीनबाट हुने यस मामलामा कुनै पनि हस्तक्षेप सह्य नहुने भन्दछ, त्यसले गर्दा नेपाललाई अमेरिकाको प्रेसर त बढ्छ नै किनभने त्यो तिब्बतसँग मात्रै सरोकार भएन। चीन आफ्नो आर्थिक प्रतिस्पर्धी, भोलि सैनिक प्रतिस्पर्धी पनि। पूरा चाइनाकोर अमेरिका र पश्चिमेली मुलुकहरुको अप्रोचमा नेपाल परिसक्यो। त्यसमा राम्रोसँग आफ्नो बुद्धि नपुर्‍याइकन, आफ्नो एजेन्सी, आफ्नो स्वायत्तता नराख्ने हो भने नेपाललाई चाहिँ अति मुस्किल दिनहरु आउनेछन्। 

अमेरिकाले इन्डो प्यासेफिक स्ट्रेटेजी अगाडि बढाइरहेको छ, अर्कोतिर चीनले बीआरआई परियोजना अघि बढाइराखेको छ। यस्ता ठूल्ठूला परियोजनाहरुबाट, ठूला सामरिक रणनीतिबाट नेपाल जस्तो अस्थिर मुलुकले कसरी आफ्नो स्वार्थको रक्षा गर्न सक्ला? आगामी दिनहरुमा नेपालको भविष्य कस्तो देख्नुहुन्छ? 
नेपालमा असंलग्न परराष्ट्र नीति पुरानो भइसक्यो भन्ने कुरा पनि चल्दैछ किनभने विश्वव्यापीकरणको अवस्थामा आधारभूत मूल्य मान्यताहरु स्थिर हुन्छन्, त्यसमा असंलग्न भन्ने हुँदैन भन्ने कुरा पनि छ। तर हाम्रो राष्ट्रिय स्वार्थबाट हेर्दा मलाई लाग्छ,अमेरिकाको सामरिक सुरक्षा र चीनसँगको सामरिक सुरक्षामा हामी लाग्नु हुँदैन। हामीले स्पष्ट यीनिहरुलाई भन्न पर्यो एउटा राष्ट्रिय सहमतिकै आधारमा हाम्रो अवस्था यस्तो छ।

विकासका आकांक्षाहरु यस्ता छन्। जसले गर्दा हामी तिमीहरुको होडबाजीमा पर्न सक्दैनौं। पर्नु पनि हुन्न, पर्न पनि चाहँदैनौं। त्यसमा हामीलाई कर नगर भन्ने हिसाबले सन्तुलित व्यवहार हामीले गर्नुपर्छ। 

जस्तो हामीले एमसीसी परियोजना पारित गर्‍यौं। एसपीपी परियोजनाबारे छलफल गर्‍यौं। बीआरआई हामीले लिऔं तर उनीहरुको ग्लोबल सेक्युरिटी इनिशियटिभ (जिसआई) मा जानुपर्छ भन्ने लाग्दैन। खास गरि जिएसआई त अमुक नै छ। नेपालको सहभागिताले के हित वा हानी पुर्‍याउँछ भन्ने कुराको हामी आकलन गर्न नसक्ने कुरामै जाँदा बढी उत्साहित भएर यहाँ जानु पर्ने आवश्यकता छैन।

जसले गर्दा भोलि अर्को पक्षले पनि त्यस्तै खालको कार्यक्रम ल्याएर आओस्। सबैसँग त्यस्तै सुरक्षा कार्यक्रम गर्दै जाँदा कहाँ पुग्छौं हामी? को पट्टी जाने हो? हाम्रो परम्परागत असंग्न नीति थियो। त्यो सरकार, त्यो व्यवस्था नरुचाए पनि त्यसका राम्रा पक्षहरुलाई हामीले ग्रहण गर्नुपर्छ। हामी असंलग्न नीतिमै रहनुपर्छ।

अमेरिकी राजनीतिशास्त्री लियो इ रोजले सन् ७० को दशकमा लेखेका थिए कि नेपाल त्यस्तो मुलुक हो। जसको परराष्ट्र सम्बन्धले त्यसको घरेलु नीति निर्देशित गर्छ। अब अहिले ५० वर्षपछि आएर हेर्दा केही परिवर्तन पाउनु भएको छ कि छैन?
मोटामोटी रुपमा त्यो कथन अहिले पनि वास्तविक जस्तो नै लाग्छ। हाम्रो घरेलु नीतिमा पनि हाम्रो परराष्ट्र नीति, विदेशी आंकाक्षा, विदेशी अपेक्षाको धेरै माने राख्दछ। तर त्यसलाई अलिकति संशोधित गर्ने हिसाबले मैले कतै लेखेको पनि छु। नेपालको राजनीतिक प्रणाली र नेपालको भू–राजनीतिक प्रणाली एक अर्काको विपरित (क्रस परपोज) मा गइराखेको पनि म देख्दछु। हाम्रो जुन व्यवस्था छ खुलमखुला बहस गर्नका लागि नेपालीहरु लागेका छन्। चुनावको बेलामा लागेका छन्। नयाँ सरकार आउँछ। त्यसमा बहस गरेका छन्।

त्यो हिसाबको एउटा धार चलिराखेकै हुन्छ। त्यसले हाम्रो भू–राजनीतिक धारलाई कसरी संहाल्न सकेको छ भन्ने कुराको राम्रो निर्क्योल एउटा अध्ययन गर्नुपर्ने व्यवस्था आएको छ। त्यसमा लिओ रोजले भनेजस्तै विदेश नीतिले नै हामीलाई, आन्तरिक नीतिलाई गाइड गर्दै जान दिनेहो भने हठात् रूपमा संसद विघटन हुँदै जानेछ। हिजोसम्म सत्तोसराप गरिरहेका पार्टी फेरि एकै रातमा मिल्दै जानेछन्।

उता कतिपय आन्तरिक कारणले हुने घटनाहरुमा पनि विदेशी हात देख्ने भयौं। विदेशीलाई पनि नेपालको सन्दर्भमा आफू त्यसरी तानिएकोमा पछुतो नरहेको अवस्था देखिँदै गएको छ। जसले गर्दा विदेश नीति नै हावी भएर गएको कथन चाहिँ मलाई सत्य नै हो जस्तो लाग्छ।

सत्तापक्ष, प्रतिपक्षभन्दा पनि अहिलेको समग्र नेतृत्व भूराजनीतिक चुनौतीप्रति कत्तिको संवेदनशील छ जस्तो पाउनुहुन्छ?
उहाँहरु यता आएको बेलामा कुराकानी गर्‍यो भने उहाँहरु संवेदनशील जस्तो देखिनुहुन्छ। उहाँहरुका आफ्ना अफ्ठ्याराहरु व्यक्तिगत रुपमा पनि देखाउनु्हुन्छ। त्यो एउटा भूमरीमा गाँजिनु भएको जस्तो लाग्दछ। अब चाहिँ यस्तो लाग्छ कि नेताहरुलाई गाली गर्नुभन्दा पनि सिंगो नेतृत्त्वको माया लाग्ने अवस्था आइसकेको छ। आफूसँगै कलेज पढेका राजनीतिकर्मीहरु आफ्नो आस्थाका लागि जेल, नेल भोग्नु भयो। हामीले प्रत्यक्ष रुपमा पनि देख्यौं।

शक्तिमा पुगेपछि के हुँदो रहेछ? के मा तानिँदो रहेछ। बाँधिदो रहेछ। जसले गर्दा जनतालाई कुरा भन्न नसक्ने, त्यहाँ गएर हाम्रा यी यी अफ्ठ्यारा हुन्। त्यहाँ पुगेर गाँजिनु नै भएको छ। उ बेला किसुनजी, गिरिजाप्रसाद, मनमोहनको समयमा केही दह्रिलोपना थियो। अहिलेका त माया लाग्दा पात्रहरु भए। यो जुन ‘सक्सेसर जेनेरेसन’ पनि छ, उनीहरुमा पनि बोल्न नसक्ने अवस्था आएको छ। त्यहाँ के हुँदो रहेछ भन्ने अनुसन्धानकर्ता एवं विद्यार्थीलाई चाहिँ शोध गर्न चाखलाग्दो विषय भएको छ।

• #सञ्जय उपाध्याय