The search for a prime minister in Nepal that began with the resignation of the then incumbent last June ended after nearly seventh months in February 2011. The newly elected Prime Minister, Jhala Nath Khanal, who belongs to the Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist Leninist, owes his victory to the Maoists of Nepal (Communist Party of Nepal-Maoists), who had failed by a whisker to obtain absolute majority in a Parliament (interim) of over 600 members.

That had not deterred the Maoists, especially its leader Pushp Kamal Dahal alias Prachanda, known for his provocative anti-Indian and passionate pro-Chinese rhetoric, from trying to dictate the course of events in Nepal, even rubbing the other political parties the wrong way in the process. He had clear ambitions of becoming the prime minister with the support of all seven parties that are part of the ‘peace process.’

He failed repeatedly to meet his ambition in the prolonged process to elect a new prime minister because the other parties did not share his self-estimate as a Messiah of Nepal. They are not sure of his commitment to democracy and freedom of speech. He gave up after 17 attempts at electing the prime minister by ballot had failed and announced that he was making a ‘sacrifice’ by withdrawing from the contest in favour of Khanal.

The ‘sacrifice’ by Prachanda, in which he backed a candidate from another party, was his show of defiance against India which was allegedly ‘interfering’ in the process of selection of a prime minister and wanted one who is benign towards New Delhi. It is no secret that Prachanda and the Maoists want a pro-Chinese leader in the driver’s seat. They have little love for India even though it is the country where they seek refuge and safety when running away from the law.

However, the ‘sacrifice’ by Prachanda won him few encomiums from the other parties within Nepal. It enabled him to install a prime minister someone who would be his proxy and follow the roadmap for Nepal that was prepared by the Maoists. It is undeniable that the Maoists will have a big say in running the government by virtue of their large presence in Parliament.

Undoubtedly Khanal’s election was made possible after a ‘secret deal’ between Prachanda’s Maoists and the Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist-Leninist, an ‘agreement’ that was signed reportedly without consultations with seven parties in the present coalition that is working to complete the ‘peace process’ in Nepal.  

The Maoists in Nepal are gloating over the success of their move that had Khanal elected with their support. But they may be celebrating a bit too hastily. Some parties, notably the Nepali Congress, which is the second largest party in parliament after the Maoists, have already expressed reservations about the ‘proxy’ rule of the Maoists. Most of the Madhesi parties (of people of ‘Indian origin’) said they would not join the cabinet led by a Maoist proxy.

The Maoists believe that their successful strategy in the election of the prime minister took India by surprise. The Indian foreign secretary, Nirupama Rao, was in Kathmandu just days before what proved to be the final round of election for the prime minister. The Nepalese media speculated that she had come to ensure that Nepal elected a pro-India candidate, but the result proved the failure of her ‘mission’.  This is supposed to have upset the government of India which is now ‘confused’ and does not know how to react to the election of the new Nepalese prime minister, going by reports in the Nepali media.

It goes without saying that New Delhi cannot be too pleased to see a Nepalese prime minister in office who is backed by a party as patently anti-Indian as the Nepalese Maoists and enjoys the backing of forces in Nepal that want to forge a strategic relationship with China at the cost of India.

But there is no need to reach an alarming conclusion at once.

The game of playing India against China in Nepal can create a Frankenstein monster, much like the one visible in India’s western neighbourhood where the jihadi forces nurtured and tutored to take on India are turning on their masters. India and Nepal are bound by strong historic ties and the two countries are deeply entwined in more ways than one. No Nepalese leader would help his country by working to embitter relations with India to the extent that they become like those between India and Pakistan. 

A fresh look at the much vilified treaty of friendship with Nepal is unlikely to upset India too much, having said more than once it is ready to revise the treaty (even though there is no provision for it). The clauses in the treat that are seen as ‘unequal’ can be removed or modified.

On the other hand, Nepal would not like to see the abolition of clauses that accrue economic benefits to Nepal, including the provision for free movement of Nepalese into India for work and permanent migration. The issue of river waters flow is tricky, but not outside the scope of a settlement, provided there is a spirit of give and take on both sides.

It was an interesting coincidence that the Nepalese President, Ram Baran Yadav, was in India as Nepal went into what turned out to be the last round of electing a new prime minister. He had meetings with nearly every important Indian leader, including Dr Manmohan Singh, who assured him that India wanted continued friendly ties with Nepal which were based on equality and mutual respect. The visiting dignitary gave no indication that he disbelieved what his hosts had told him.

Two pressing tasks for the new prime minister will be drafting a constitution by May (original date for doing so was May 2010) and integrating the armed ‘People’s Liberation Army’ of the Maoists with the regular army. Neither is an easy task, especially the question of integration of the PLA.

The army in Nepal is suspicious of the PLA which after a decade of experience in guerrilla warfare and use of violence to quell dissent will find it difficult to observe the apolitical and professional code of conduct of a regular government security force.