Back to backyard

The Maoists’ decision to stay out of polls and the UN mission extending its stay in Nepal are two worries that trouble India

Pranay Sharma Delhi

India may well be looking for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, but it still remains apprehensive about UN officials playing a major role in its backyard. The fresh political turmoil in Nepal after the Maoists withdrew from the interim government is giving South Block officials sleepless nights. The worry is not only over the possible political instability that the Maoist decision might bring about, but it is also about the space it leaves for the UN to play a much wider role than what its mandate now provides.

India has always been worried over situations that bring the UN to its doorstep. Its experience with the UN on Kashmir has been a constant reminder to successive leaderships in New Delhi to keep it as far as possible from knotty-problems in South Asia. Developments in Nepal over the past few years allowing the UN to step in have been no exception. Despite its initial reluctance, New Delhi decided to go along with the popular view within and outside Nepal to get the UN to help in stabilising it.

Early this year, the UN Security Council decided to set up the UN Political Mission in Nepal. The body, popularly known by its acronym, UNMIN, has the mandate to monitor the ceasefire agreement reached between the Maoists and the political parties in Nepal and to ensure that peace remains till elections for a constituent assembly is held. What is of significance to India is that the UNMIN's mandate is only for a year.

If elections are held as per schedule - November 22, 2007, there might be little reason why the UN Political Mission office in Kathmandu should not be wound up by the year-end. But the Maoists' decision to withdraw from the interim government has raised doubts not only whether elections would be held on time but also on the timely departure of the UN special team from Nepal.

India fears that UNMIN has been broadening its mandate by looking at areas that it was not supposed to be concerned about. The Indian displeasure has been brought to the notice of the UN Secretary General's office in New York -- not as a protest, but to apprise the secretary general of the 'negative impact' the UNMIN's attempt might have on Nepal and the neighbouring region. New Delhi might have its own ideas about the UNIMIN's role, but the ambiguity about what it should do lies in the text of the resolution that the UN Security Council passed in January this year when it took the decision of setting up the Political Mission in Nepal.

 "Recognising the strong desire of the people of Nepal for peace and restoration of democracy and noting the request of the Nepalese government and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) for UN's assistance in implementing the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the Security Council today established a United Nations Political Mission in Nepal for one year, with a mandate to monitor the ceasefire and assist in the election of a constituent assembly," resolution 1740 says. To complicate matters further, it says, "Through the unanimous adoption of resolution 1740, the Council also tasked the new Mission with monitoring the management of arms and armed personnel of both sides through a Joint Monitoring Coordinating Committee."

The wide mandate has left scope for interpretation and UNMIN officials have been utilising it fully to negotiate closely with political parties to ensure that they work together for restoring democracy in Nepal. India argues that the UNMIN is in Nepal only to ensure free and fair elections and not to get involved in day-to-day political developments. But the UN team has been arguing that unless it regularly coordinates with the political actors in Nepal, it would not be able to maintain the ceasefire and hold free and fair elections.

There is a particular provision in the UN resolution causing worry to India: "The Council also expressed its intention to terminate or further extend UNMIN's mandate upon the request of the Nepalese government, taking into consideration the secretary general's expectation that the Mission would be a focused mission of limited duration."

Many in the Indian establishment fear that a situation could well be created that might allow the UN Political Mission to extend its stay in Nepal even after the end of the year. That could be one reason why India is keen that no matter what, elections in Nepal should be held as per schedule on November 22. But many have raised questions on how realistic it would be to have the polls in the face of the Maoist's decision to withdraw from the Girija Prasad Koirala-led interim government. The former armed rebels have assured they would still respect the ceasefire. Most felt that if the Maoists stay away from elections it might lose legitimacy. Also, they will not have the effectiveness to restore political and economic stability and bring back democracy to Nepal.

It is interesting that the Maoists' decision to withdraw came within hours of the meeting they had with Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon. Menon was in Kathmandu to hold parleys with various political leaders. Indications suggest that Menon tried to convince the Maoists as well as others to hold the November elections. That the Maoists withdrew despite this has raised serious questions on the influence India continues to have on major political actors in Nepal.

Some are of the view that the Maoists withdrew to drive a better bargain with Koirala and his Nepali Congress (NC) before the elections. There is an opinion that the Maoists, who claimed till some months back that they were the most popular political force in Nepal, are afraid to let this cliché to be put to test by facing the electorate. If they end up getting far less seats in Parliament than either the Nepali Congress or the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist - CPN-UML), it is possible that in the future it would be seen as a dead-force. By remaining out of the elections it could continue to enjoy the political status and clout it currently has.

Some argue that the Maoists withdrew because they were not sure if the NC would honour its commitment to abolish monarchy by declaring Nepal a republic. There are sections in the NC who are against this. Many in the party argue that the interim government is not in a position to take such an important decision and it is best left for the next elected government. However, without a prior commitment, one is unsure whether this would mean a total abolition of the monarchy, or there still will be a king who would serve as the 'constitutional head' with ornamental powers.

The other important demand of the Maoists has been on 'proportional representation' in Parliament. If Koirala concedes the demand, it would mean that the Maoists would, at least, have a chance of winning a number of seats that would be on a par with NC and the CPN (UML). If a political breakthrough does not come about and the Maoists continue to stay away, elections in Nepal would lose much of its relevance. It is a situation that really worries India. The political instability it would create might force the Nepalese government to ask the UN Political Mission to extend its stay in Nepal. This would also mean diminishing political stocks for India in a country it had so far considered its backyard.