India's Nepal policy is ridiculously short-sighted

Leave it to the mandarins in the Central Secretariat to take a bad situation and make it worse!

India knew that it had a potential crisis on its hand when King Gyanendra dismissed his prime minister on February 1. It took three weeks to formulate a reaction, which has now come in the form of cutting off aid to the Royal Nepal Army. I happen to believe that this is ridiculously short-sighted.

Everyone agrees that the best possible situation would be a constitutional monarchy in Nepal with a pro-India ministry in place and no Maoist insurrection. Unfortunately, we have to deal with the world as it is, not as it should be. Let us take a look at how events may unfold.

Scenario One: The Maoists intensify their attacks, controlling larger areas of that country. They already rule 39 of Nepal's 75 districts. If India chooses to starve the Nepal Army of supplies, in the name of restoring democracy, there is an excellent chance that the King and his forces will simply throw in the towel and give in to the Maoists. The Maoists will then join hands with their murderous Naxalite brethren in India.

Scenario Two: What happens if King Gyanendra becomes desperate at the Indian decision? Let us remember that it is open to him to seek aid from Pakistan or China. This gives him a fighting chance of beating the Maoists. The victorious monarch shall then be an enemy of India.

Scenario Three: India decides to reverse its stance and resume the flow of arms to the Nepal Army. The politicians in Nepal will protest vehemently. It is like one of those horrible Test matches where India cannot hope to win, the best it can plan for is a draw.

Maoist dictatorship

In Nepal today, it means working toward a solution that will result in a regime that is not actively anti-Indian. Will a Maoist dictatorship in Kathmandu meet that requirement? Is a government dependent on aid from Islamabad and Beijing is in India's best interests? Think about those questions and then tell me how it serves India if New Delhi cuts off all aid to the Royal Nepal Army. Yes, I have heard all the loud protests from Washington and London about the need to restore democracy.

Geography

But geography is more important than rhetoric. Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom neighbours Nepal. Neither is in any danger of being inundated with Naxalites.

Neither the Maoists nor the Nepal Army have any great regard for the democracy which the Americans and the British talk about. We have to choose the foreign policy which suits us, not a bunch of diplomats halfway across the world.

The principles of liberal democracy hold little or no attraction for either the Maoists or the Royal Nepal Army. But a Maoist regime in Kathmandu is the worst possible option, and a close second is a Nepal dependent on aid from Pakistan and China. Both options are now a distinct possibility. We have preferred rhetoric above reason, and we shall pay the price.

The writer is a well-known political commentator.