As India settles into its seat at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), it can look forward to a busy year ahead. Among the many vexatious issues on the agenda is the impending closure of the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN). Established in January 2007, UNMIN was tasked with facilitating the disarmament process

outlined in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 2006. UNMIN’s mandate has already been extended seven times and is now set to expire on January 15, 2011. In a recent report to the Security Council, the chief of UNMIN has warned that if the current stalemate is not broken, Nepal could witness a presidential intervention or even a military coup. But India has made it clear that the UNMIN has failed to accomplish its objectives and that it should be wound up. At the same time, New Delhi seems ready to step up its diplomatic efforts to overcome the impasse.
The prevailing gridlock in Nepal revolves around two related issues: integration of the Maoist People’s Liberation Army (PLA) with the Nepal Army, and the drawing up of a new Constitution. The CPA placed the Nepal Army and the PLA on par. It also called for the formation of a special committee to “inspect, integrate and rehabilitate the Maoist combatants”. An accompanying agreement on managing the armies stated that this committee would determine “who are eligible for integration into the security forces”. The committee was set up in the end of 2008 and a little over 19,000 PLA fighters have been verified. Differences, however, persist between the Maoists and the other major parties — the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal- Unified Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML). The latter, with the support of the Nepal Army, insist that the number of PLA fighters to be integrated must be determined upfront by negotiations. They claim that the Maoists had agreed to a figure of 3,000. The Maoists deny this and insist that the numbers can only be fixed after ascertaining the wishes of every PLA combatant. Another area of disagreement is over entry standards for reintegration. The Nepal Congress, UML and the Army insist that current standards should be applicable. A third point of discord is over whether the PLA fighters will be inducted as units (the Maoists’ demand) or as individuals.
None of these are insurmountable problems. And India can facilitate their resolution. But it would be best to tackle these as part of larger changes to the structure and composition of the Nepal Army. The CPA, which India was instrumental in arranging, specifically calls for “democratic restructuring” of the Army to make it “national and inclusive”. The ethnic composition both of the officer corps and the rank-and-file has to be broadened. In particular, the Madhesis of Terai and Dalits have to be afforded an opportunity to serve in the Army. These changes will necessitate an examination of the existing standards for recruitment. Such an exercise should help crystallise new norms and standards that will also be applicable to the PLA fighters seeking reintegration. The issue of integration as units or individuals can similarly be considered in the light of the larger changes to the force structure.
The challenge for India is not to allow its approach to be shaped exclusively by the concerns of Nepal Army and its political backers. The Army’s concerns are understandable. But persisting with the current set-up is not in the long-term interest of Nepal — a point that New Delhi understood when supporting the CPA in 2006. During the stand-off between the Maoist leader Prachanda and the Army Chief in 2009, India stood by the Army. This not only led Prachanda to step down as Prime Minister, but also called into question India’s commitment to the principle of democratic control. New Delhi must now display more creativity in tackling this thorny but unavoidable issue.
This brings us to the larger problem of the defunct Constituent Assembly. Successive efforts to elect a Prime Minister and push ahead with the drafting of the Constitution have failed to make any headway. So far India has stood by the parties that oppose the Maoists’ re-entry into the government. It believes that the Maoists’ commitment to democratic politics is suspect. The internal debates within the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) on the merits of entering mainstream politics and the deplorable conduct of the Maoist-affiliated Youth Communist League have deepened India’s distrust. The Maoists, for their part, have made matters worse by repeatedly claiming that India’s interference is the reason for the political deadlock and that India is the main enemy. Mr Prachanda’s efforts to cosy up with the Chinese have not helped either. But there are divisions within the Maoist party on these issues. At a major party meet held last month, the party ideologue Baburam Bhattarai opposed the move to brand India as the key enemy. More recently, Mr Bhattarai was in New Delhi for consultations with the Indian government. Mr Bhattarai sought to assuage India’s concerns about his party’s fidelity to the democratic process and its sensitivity to Indian security interests.
But he also urged India to play a more constructive role. The problem, of course, is that Mr Bhattarai’s stance may not be representative of his party’s top leadership. It is essential that Mr Prachanda stops equivocating and openly affirms his party’s commitment to the process.
India, too, should realise that an excessively suspicious attitude towards the Maoists is unlikely to advance its own interests. Allowing the Constituent Assembly to lapse in May 2011 will be a seriously regressive step. Picking up pieces thereafter might well prove impossible. Equally, India must resist the suggestions emanating from anti-Maoist parties for allowing the President, Ram Baran Yadav, to become the head of the executive branch with the backing of the Army. Such a move will have incalculable consequences for a democratic Nepal. In navigating these tricky shoals in Nepal, India’s policy should be guided by its long-term interests and not just its immediate concerns.

Srinath Raghavan is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi