In the past few months of great uncertainty, India must have been in continuous dialogue with the major stakeholders in Nepal through quiet back-channel diplomacy. Shyam Saran’s visit marks a change in this trend to one of open diplomacy. This does not signify a solution or a way to break the deadlock. It restates the obvious reality that India is the major external stakeholder and instability in Nepal affects it the most. It’s also a realization on India’s part that the post CA elections have brought out one fact very starkly – that all political parties need to move along together for any progress to take place at all in Nepal. No one party can be isolated or ignored.

Shyam Saran, a former Foreign Secretary as well as a former Ambassador to Nepal who is supposed to have been closely involved in the 12 point agreement of Nov 2005 was in Nepal from 4-6 August. He said that he had come to discuss with the Nepali political leaders, the Indian Prime Ministers’ concerns about Nepal’s current political instability.

The visit came in the background of three attempts at electing a Prime Minister (PM) not yielding any result and the fourth slated for the 6th of August while Saran was in Nepal. The views between the political parties and within the political parties have been sharply divided over the likely alternative measures to be taken which can ensure a way out of the present crises. The Nepali Army announced the recruitment process for 3464 personnel in its infantry division and there was a consequent announcement by UCPN (M) inviting applications for vacant posts in PLA. The security situation in the open borders with the southern part of Nepal facing severe lawlessness has been worsening due to the activities of various armed outfits.

There were two dominant views in Nepal regarding Saran’s visit. The first was that he had come on the eve of the election of the PM for the fourth time, to prevent the Maoists from forming a government and also to prevent a splitting of the Madhesi votes in favour of the Maoists. India wanted to continue to isolate the Maoists and divide them and the visit was nothing but intervention. The separate meeting of Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai with Saran had polarized views within the UCPN (M) contributing to a strengthening of these arguments. It was only a week later that Maoist supremo Prachanda clarified that Bhattarai had met Saran with his consent. Thus the controversy was put to rest but only after a great bitterness was generated. The other view was that India had genuine security concerns with regard to Nepal and was concerned for its stability; that India wanted to help form a national unity government and not another anti-Maoist coalition.  It is in the midst of these doubts, suspicions and expectations that India has to contribute to stability and peace in Nepal.

India and the Maoists should revisit their relations, to mitigate distrust and achieve meaningful progress in the peace process. Going by the statements of the Maoist leaders as reported in the media, Saran had asked them to join the mainstream politics of the country. The Maoists are reported to have replied that that they are not going to join conventional mainstream politics, but rather the Nepali Congress (NC). They also said that the CPN-UML should agree to the new mainstream political system that they established. Nevertheless, the dialogue showed that India was attempting to build a working relation with the Maoists.  Only after addressing the trust deficit with the Maoists can India help bring national consensus not just with regard to the issue of government formation only but to the larger peace process in Nepal.

However, the task does not end there. Government formation has never been an easy task in Nepal. Following Jana Andolan of 1990, there were nine governments in ten years. This was the scenario even without the Maoists as a mainstream political party. Thus presently India will have to address these deep divisions within the political parties to carry all the stakeholders along. This will ensure that the constitution is written within the extended period Nepal has given to itself. None of the parties have changed their rigid positions prior to the election to the PM for the fifth time to be held on 18 August.  India has a difficult task ahead which it needs to recognize.

Saran’s visit indicates a beginning in this process and a subtle shift in India’s policy. Given the past experience, India’s initiative should have transparency and take into consideration the peoples expectations. This will increase India’s credibility unlike the undue controversy over its exact role in the 12 point agreement. More of such visits from India could be expected. Peace processes all over the world on many occasions have reverted back to conflict. That should be prevented. Not just for Nepal but for India’s own sake.