KATHMANDU, JAN 13 - Acute absence of political leadership in New Delhi in dealing with Nepal has made the security apparatus and bureaucracy the determining factors of Nepal policy, according to a former envoy to India.

“Political leaders who were engaged with Nepal are no longer in policy making positions in New Delhi,” said Durgesh Man Singh. Though New Delhi’s position on Nepal hasn’t failed, there has been a shift in approach because the security apparatus and bureaucrats now control Nepal policy, he said.

However, India’s concerns on Nepal’s long-term stability have been loud and clear since the signing of the 12-point agreement between the Maoists and non-Maoist parties. 

A day after the UCPN (Maoist) launched a nationwide drive to drum up public support for its campaign to safeguard “national sovereignty”, a number of foreign policy pundits and former diplomats on Tuesday urged the party not to politicise border disputes.

“This issue should not be politicised,” said former ambassador to India Prof. Lok Raj Baral at Reporters Club. “Whatever might be the motive behind the recent Maoist action, it will definitely not lead to a solution.”

Maoist leaders, including Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, and vice chairmen Baburam Bhattarai and Mohan Baidhya on Monday travelled to various disputed border points across the country.

Baral said Nepal clearly lacks a well defined India policy due to a number of reasons: deep differences in perception among political parties, lack of political stability and coherence in approaching relations with India. As a result, Baral says, the Nepali side has never picked up “real time” issues.

According to him, there are two outstanding foreign policy issues with India. The porous border, which needs effective management and the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship. “Nepal should clearly come up with a clear position on what kind of issues it likes to discuss with India while reviewing the treaty,” said Baral.

Nepal is strategically located, which has both its advantages and vulnerability. “This,” said Baral, “demands broad-based understanding among various stakeholders to decide on Nepal’s India policy.”

Not everyone viewed the Maoist party’s sovereignty campaign negatively. Buddhi Narayan Shrestha, a specialist on border demarcation, said the Maoist move was well within “the political and diplomatic ambit.”

He suggested that non-state actors could be used to lobby support through track-II diplomacy. 

Former envoy to China Rajeshwor Acharya said boundary issues could be settled within a proper political framework. “If any party feels that the border issue should be taken up at the political level, it should lobby Indian politicians and diplomats, rather than visiting the disputed areas.” 

 

Posted on: 2010-01-15 05:38

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.