Dr Ramesh Nath Pandey, who occupied ministerial chair of the then “Kingdom of Nepal” several times (as foreign affairs and communications) has, reportedly, said that “There is no possibility of Sikkimization of Nepal.” He has put forth several reasons in support of his statement. He is only partly right as he is referring only to blatant Sikkimization not indirect Sikkimization.
“Sikkimization” is a term used in the context of annexation of an independent and sovereign country, alluding to the fate of once independent and sovereign country. Bhutanization is similar term which doesn’t entail annexation; different in form but same in substance – in effect India is the “master” of natural resources of both Sikkim and Bhutan.
India has been asserting the same with regards to natural resources of Nepal too and getting away with it with the collusion of Nepali corrupt politicos and bureaucrats without formally having to “Sikkimize” Nepal, manifesting in Koshi, Gandak, Tanakpur and Mahakali treaties and agreements related to Arun III and Upper Karnali in the name of attracting FDI (interestingly India didn’t succeed to “persuade” Nepal to execute similar treaties/agreements during Panchayati system). All these treaties and agreements have been executed with the vested interest of colonizing natural resources of Nepal; harnessing Nepal’s water resources for the benefit of India (like flood control, irrigation and even electricity) and leaving Nepal to face negative externalities like inundation and displacement.
When India is able to colonize Nepal’s water resources in this manner there is no need for her to “Sikkimize” Nepal. Actually, this format is more beneficial for India as she doesn’t need to spend huge amount of money in “defense and foreign affairs” and in subsidy to pamper the populace; compared to what she needs to do in the case of Sikkim and Bhutan.
Post a Comment