By Nishi Thapa
The terror attack on Mumbai on November 26 quickly developed into renewed rivalry between India and Pakistan, and small Nepal has been dragged into the controversy. The latest dispute, focusing on the lone survivor among the 10 terrorists, is a case in point.
Nepal's Foreign Ministry issued a statement on December 19 stating that the man, Ajmal Kasab, was "neither arrested in Nepal nor was he handed over to any other country". This reaction came in the context of a Pakistani media report which earlier claimed that Kasab was arrested by Nepali police in 2005, and was quietly handed over to Indian authorities.
According to a claim made by a Pakistani lawyer, C M Faruque, Kasab was kept by Indian security, together with other Pakistani detainees.
"The people arrested in Nepal had gone there on legal visas for business, but Indian agencies are in the habit of capturing Pakistanis from Nepal and afterwards implicating them in Mumbai-like incidents to malign Pakistan," the lawyer was quoted as saying. Indian officials described these allegations as sheer propaganda. But this report was picked up by some Indian media outlets, including The Asian Age newspaper.
While this Nepali official's stand has helped Indian authorities maintain their original contention that the terrorists came from Pakistan to Mumbai via a sea route, there have been several occasions in the past when New Delhi has alleged that Nepal has become a den of terrorists sponsored by Pakistan's intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
There have also been cases in which New Delhi has complained that Nepali authorities did not take action against Pakistani visitors who were allegedly involved in the circulation of fake Indian currency. Pakistan's contention has been that it is prepared to cooperate when Nepali authorities can produce concrete proof of the involvement of Pakistani nationals in unlawful activities.
If a distant neighbor like Pakistan finds it useful to keep its intelligence agency "active" in Nepal, it can be assumed that India's external intelligence service, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), is "very active". China's intelligence agency is also likely to be involved.
The presence of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) also cannot be ruled out. The British are also quite adept in handling their discreet spy network in a beneficial manner.
Who could be better placed to perceive such movements than Maoist leader Prachanda, who as prime minister heads Nepal's interim coalition. Prachanda revealed to journalists last week that what outwardly looked like a quarrel among political parties was in fact a confrontation between external forces.
What he did not concede is that the primary reason for enhanced external interest in Nepal is the rise of the Maoist brand of communism in the Himalayan country.
India's first official reaction on the Mumbai carnage came from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who blamed "outsiders" for their role in the tragic event in which nearly 200 people were killed. He then went on to warn "neighbors" of consequences if they continued to allow terrorists to use their territory. While Manmohan did not leave any doubt that Pakistan was the first target, his statement expressed New Delhi's suspicion that smaller countries around India also had to share the blame.
In an article appearing in the December 19 edition of Indian magazine Frontline, a writer said blaming Pakistan was a "convenient option" for India. If this comment is taken at face value, one can conclude that blaming smaller neighbors like Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka is even more convenient. This has been the case from time to time.
New Delhi's insistence that Kathmandu should enter a new extradition treaty with India is being seen in this context. One of the provisions of the proposed treaty requires the Nepali authorities to hand over to India suspects who could be citizens of other countries living or working in Nepal.
Kathmandu has not agreed to this pact so far in view of the concerns from Pakistan and China, among others. The existing extradition treaty, signed in 1953, is seen as anachronistic by New Delhi. Surprisingly, Indians do not take an interest in abrogating the more controversial friendship treaty signed in 1950. Almost all of Nepal's political parties have publicly described this pact as "unequal".
Nepal remains in an unenviable situation whereby it must assure its immediate neighbors that it won't allow its soil to be used by the foes of friendly neighbors. Beijing's concerns are directed to Tibetan exiles - including those sneaking in from their bases in India. India's worries revolve around Nepal's possible bid to use the "China card" as well as Pakistan's perceived attempt to use Nepali territory for deadly ISI-funded Muslim schemes against India. Pakistan, a nuclear power, and an ally of both China and the United States, would obviously be concerned were its nationals visiting Nepal not provided with basic courtesy and security.
The Nepali intelligentsia is concerned with a thorny question: if Nepal's precious time and scarce resources have to be utilized merely to address concerns of others, when will Nepal get a chance to look after its own safety, security and welfare?
History suggests that New Delhi often disregards what it preaches to others. For example, it sends armed security units inside Nepal to pick up suspected persons before their cases are tried in Nepal's courts. One striking example of this surfaced in February, when Nepali police officials handed over an absconding doctor who was allegedly running a major kidney transplant racket. Amit Kumar would have been transferred to India after the completion of extradition procedures, but New Delhi used diplomatic channels to take the suspect out of Nepal.
Former prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala ordered Nepal police to hand over the suspect to Indian authorities without any legal basis. Koirala's friendly gesture was later reciprocated by New Delhi during April elections when India's national security advisor, M K Narayanan, used a television channel to extend India's support to Koirala and his party. That such support did not help him get re-elected prime minister is another story.
"We never put all our eggs in any [one] basket," Narayanan said in a September interview published in The Week magazine. While this statement was made in the context of Pakistan, it sends a pithy message to all in the region.
While Narayanan was spared from the humiliation of home minister Shivaraj Patil, who was forced to resign in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks, security experts do not doubt the failure of India's intelligence apparatus. Conversations that this writer had with incumbent and former security officials in Nepal suggest that New Delhi is currently attempting to cover up its failure.
To accuse Pakistan without any empirical, credible evidence is clearly an attempt to divert the attention of the Indian public. Pakistan is fighting terrorists along its border with Afghanistan and is unsuccessfully engaged with terrorism within its own territory. Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari has offered a joint investigation on the Mumbai incident and has pledged to take action if non-state players in his country are found to have been involved in the attacks.
As officials in India continue to play the blame game, independent Indian experts and analysts do not approve of methods which might prove expedient in the short term.
"Experts on the issue of terrorism say that blaming Pakistan will be a convenient option," wrote John Cherian of Frontline magazine on December 19. Such a policy is bound to raise tensions and derail the peace process being pursued through what has been billed as bilateral dialogue. Brahma Chellaney, often perceived as a hawkish strategist, also thinks it prudent to employ options of diplomatic, economic and political orientation. "Between the two extremes - inaction and military action - lie a hundred different options," Chellaney wrote in The Hindu, on December 20.
A democratic country's actions naturally must be sane, humane and transparent to the highest extent possible. It was probably lack of transparency which led Indian minister, Abdul Rahman Antulay, to raise doubts about the the killing of a security official who was heading an anti-terrorism squad. "Anyone going to the roots of terror has always been a target," the Indian media quoted the minister as saying. Antulay's party was embarrassed at his suspicion of foul play and the opposition criticized the Muslim minister for saying something which could help Pakistan.
Nepali people are reminded of the hijacking of an Indian aircraft exactly nine years ago on December 24, 1999. The New Delhi-bound flight from Kathmandu was hijacked minutes after take off and was relinquished in Kandahar, Afghanistan, a week later. New Delhi was prompt to punish Kathmandu: suspending Indian Airline services for several months for its lax security. When flights were resumed, Nepal was forced to accept Indian security personnel frisking passengers at Kathmandu airport.
India even labelled a Nepali passenger as one of the hijackers. Later, when this could not be proved, India did not offer any apology for the mistake. Madan Lal Khurana, a minister in the government of former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, said publicly in April 2006 that some of the "inside information" he possessed about the 1999 hijacking was "sensational". He promised to reveal details of the behind-the-scenes activity at an appropriate time.
Nepal's strategic location makes its stability vital in regard to containing possible attacks on neighboring nations. As such, many Nepali analysts feel that alleged foreign meddling in the country's domestic politics should come to an end.
This is something even Indian politicians admit from time to time.
"Keeping in view past experiences with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, it is better that we keep away from the internal affairs of that country," Indian parliamentarian S Sudhakar Reddy told the press after returning from an official visit to Nepal in June 2006.
No comments:
Post a Comment