Recent events in Ukraine roused many in Nepal with a sense of suspicion, fear and uncertainty about the future world order. Despite being thousands of kilometers away from Ukraine, Nepalese here were able to relate to the predicament of the Ukrainiane people, mainly due to their proximity and own experiences with two other emerging powers, China and India.
Emerging powers (or re-emerging) express often and in no vague words how superior their history, culture and tradition are. It seems that they have not fully come to terms with their increasing importance in the world. This is indicated by their unabashed display of supremacist attitude in regional and international affairs. Some credit is due to the liberal Western countries who wasted the opportunity to set examples for the emerging powers. This provides a pretext for the emerging powers to make it appear that they’re set to correct what has gone wrong with the world recently. Never mind that what awaits us in a future world order governed by the new powers might be even more horrifying for smaller and weaker countries.
Compare the recent crisis in Ukraine with not only the territorial claims made by China in many of the neighboring areas, but also of the assertion of a ‘culturally superior’ and ancient civilization finally gaining the rightful supreme spot after a long period of subjugation. Consider Turkey’s assertive actions with neighbors in the form of what is called the ‘neo Ottoman’ policy. Also consider the popular Indian sentiment of being an old and superior civilization worthy of encompassing every other cultures and lifestyles in the neighborhood and elsewhere. Their ascent has hardly assured the rest of the world. There is a sense of vindictive pride rather than of maturity and responsibility.
After election results were announced last week, Narendra Modi is the new prime-minister of India. This has inspired a variety of reactions and emotions from across India and the neighborhood. Modi’s victory is far from the victory of hard-line and religious nationalistic viewpoint alone, espoused by organizations like VHP and RSS. Many young Indian voters are probably not much concerned about the question of building a temple in some contested place. Gurcharan Das has described it well in a recent piece. I will try to elaborate from a Nepalese perspective, what it might mean to the region.
Same, but different
Nepal has long ties with India. India is one of the biggest development partners of Nepal. The very close Indo-Nepal relations encompass almost all spheres of life in Nepal. However, all’s not smooth.
Nepal and India share share a long tradition of Hindu, Buddhist, and Sanskrit civilization. Practices of these faiths in one part has influenced that in the other. This makes the claim of a country being more ancient than the other debatable. The more important subject, in my opinion, is that Nepal has been home also to many other branches and different cultural practices like animism, shamanism, and the practices of different ethnic groups that have only partly and recently been associated with the Hindu tradition in the Indian sense of the term. For countries like ours, the patronizing appeal to cobble under the common umbrella of the “superior” religious-cultural system in the form of Indian Hindutva is a bit too offensive.
I assume it is not very different for the people in Ukraine, Mongolia, or, Armenia.
Demand for a strong leader
By and large, the Indian electorate has always been fiercely loyal and supportive of the army, intelligence agencies and the government. In recent decades (post-Nehru era?), one could say that the mainstream of thought in India has been increasingly dominated by chauvinistic nationalism. The view not only from Nepal, but also from inside India and elsewhere in the world has been similar- that Indian policies, both domestic and foreign, have exhibited a sort of uniformity and continuation of a legacy. An example of this kind of assessment is this Guardian editorial. A FP piece sometime ago argued how India was the biggest pain in Asia when it comes to foreign affairs.
Perhaps because of their conflicts with Pakistan and China, and a legacy of bureaucratic tradition continuing from the British era, the Indian state’s authority remains mostly unchallenged. Sometimes this stretches beyond the limits of what one could consider a modern democracy. This is visible for instance, in the silence and apathy of the media and general population about the state’s aggressions towards minorities or neighboring countries. Comparison with China provides an excuse to be complicit in the state’s excesses and also to demand stronger actions against troublemakers. They perceive it is because of a weak state that separatists, terrorists, and foreign agents get away easily in India. In comparison, such a situation would be dealt swiftly and without mercy in China. Neighboring countries like Nepal are of less direct concern to many Indians, and they are comfortable with allowing their government or intelligence agencies to do as they please.
With a mixture of this kind of historical context and a hugely patriotic nation faithful to the government, the demand for a strong leader who would deliver during difficult times was only natural. India is no more only a supporting partner to a party of the cold-war, but is soon poised to becoming one of such powers, should another cold war ensue. Even in the absence of such hostile situation, India will have to deal, negotiate and partner with an ever assertive China. She will have to find the right balance with America, Russia, Japan, Europe and Central Asia.
With Modi’s rise, fears of an even more intimidating Indian foreign policy are prominent in Nepal. Nepal occupies a strategic position in the Himalayas and has deep cultural and historical ties with countries in the entire pan-Himalayan region, stretching from Myanmar to Tibet to Afganistan (for more, please read Himal Southasian, “Looking for Greater Nepal”). Nepal is the watershed for much of Northern India and therein lies an area which will display even more geopolitical games in the future. People in Nepal feel their negotiators have always been outsmarted and they’ve been treated unfairly by the southern neighbor. Concerns over flooding on the Nepalese side because of Indians dams very close to the border have been heard this year too, with the onset of the Monsoon season. Such dams continue to be expanded every year. There are also numerous cases of border and trade disputes. Nepal, being landlocked, has to depend on India for most of her imports and when political relation between the countries have not been very good, an informal embargo is put into effect to influence power games inside Nepal. Recent publications by informed Indian sources have confirmed what had been widely guessed in Nepal: that the Indian government was well aware of, and was possibly protecting and training the Nepalese Maoist rebels during the insurgency, even as India labeled them as terrorists and cooperated the army to defeat the rebellion.
India has been alleged to get away with all such manoeuvrings and ‘micro-management’ while China gets the flack for every slight sign of influence it practices inside Nepal. The image of a soft and democratic power certainly helps India. The view inside Nepal has been that the bureaucracy and intelligence agencies dictate India’s foreign policy because of the apathy of the Indian civil society and political leadership. Modi has been a fierce critic of the ‘lack of foreign policy’ of his predecessor government, but it is not clear yet what kind of position he will take.
An unmissable trend in the emerging powers has been a renewed sense of national pride. This can look like an honest attempt to establish claim as a world-member and an equal partner in global affairs instead of being subordinate to the existing balance of power. On deeper inspection however, one finds such claims manifesting a vindictive desire to continue what we supposed ended with the colonial age. This sort of assertion is not necessarily territorial, maybe because it is politically incorrect and perhaps infeasible at this point in time. Nevertheless, the intentions and their results could be no less malignant.
- Modi’s momentum, Kanak Mani Dixit
- What Modi means to Nepal, Yubaraj Ghimire
- Convictions and Modi-fications, Kanak Mani Dixit
- Will Modi’s win impact India-Nepal relations?, Deepak Adhikari
- Hindu Rate of Growth, Nepali Times editorial
- Modi Foreign Policy, Shyam Saran
- Nepal Will Be ‘Hindu State’ If Modi Takes Power: VHP
- New Modi doctrine will guide relations with Nepal, N. P. Upadhyaya