Spread the love

By Shashi P.B.B. Malla

During the era of the British Raj in South Asia, the then Himalayan Kingdoms of Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim were indeed protectorates.

By definition, a protectorate is a state that is controlled and protected by another sovereign state.

It is a dependent territory that has been granted local autonomy over most internal affairs while still recognizing the suzerainty of a more powerful sovereign state without being in its direct possession.

In the context of international relations, a protectorate is a state that is under protection for defence against aggression and other violations of law.

Sikkim was annexed by India, but after their respective treaties of peace and friendship, Nepal and Bhutan can no longer be considered protectorates, much less tributaries.

This is not to say that India does not consider both Nepal and Bhutan to belong to its sphere of influence or even its political backyard.

Intense Indian Pressure on Bhutan

For some time, the Royal Bhutanese Government has been attempting to solve the border problem with China directly, but this is not favoured by India, which insists that resolving it entails a joint effort, since the security concerns vis-à-vis China in the famous Chicken’s Neck – the Siliguri Corridor between Nepal, Sikkim, Darjeeling and Bhutan – must be confronted together.

It is not lost on Bhutan that India failed to protect it during the infamous Chinese Doklam incursion in the Sikkim-Tibet-Bhutan tri-junction.

However, to demonstrate to all the world the close degree of amity between India and Bhutan, lately the King of Bhutan was ‘invited’ to take a holy dip at the Sangam of the holy trinity of rivers Ganga, Yamuna and Saraswati at Prayagraj (formerly Allahabad) during the ongoing Maha Kumbh Mela – accompanied by none other than the chief minister of the state of Uttar Pradesh, and himself a ‘holy man’.

There is not an iota of doubt that the Bhutanese king was under intense pressure to comply. As a practicing Buddhist, he would not have seen any compulsion to go that far to demonstrate his ‘fealty’ to the Indian Union.

The Lesson for Nepal

Considering the fact that the cultural and religious connections between India and Nepal are much closer than India’s to Bhutan – on paper at least, and also considering that Nepal’s former monarch, H.M. King Gyanendra also happened to be in Uttar Pradesh at the time, it is indeed surprising, if not astounding, that our king was not invited to grace the Kumbh Mela!

From this, we can easily learn that India is currently not so favourably disposed toward Nepal.

Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) also do not support the restoration of a Hindu Constitutional Monarchy because they consider it against their national interests.

Nepal’s constitutional monarchy would strengthen the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and above all its unity.

The movement for royal restoration must find its inspiration and momentum from within the nation – and without external help or interference!

The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com