印度封鎖尼泊爾背後有其自身利益，為何國際社會緘默不語？-賈亞·拉米查恩

【尼泊爾新憲法2015年9月20日正式頒佈，印度22日就以南部特萊平原地區馬德西人不滿意新憲法舉行抗議示威影響安全為由，對尼印邊界加強檢查，阻止油罐車和運輸糧油蔬菜的車輛進入尼泊爾，開始了對尼泊爾第三次經濟封鎖，造成尼泊爾油荒，封鎖延續至今，生活物資和醫藥供應已經極度緊張。

尼泊爾在遭受425特大地震災難之後，又遭受印度人為製造的人道主義災難。國際社會對印度保持了令人難以置信的沉默，迄今為止沒有國家對印度封鎖尼泊爾表示公開譴責。日前，聯合國秘書長潘基文也僅僅對尼泊爾燃料藥品短缺“表示擔憂”。尼泊爾英語報紙《加德滿都郵報》11月10日發表尼泊爾公共衞生專家賈亞·拉米查恩的文章對印度封鎖尼泊爾的真正原因予以分析，認為印度旨在控制尼泊爾的水資源，呼籲國際社會打破沉默。

河北經貿大學外語部、河北經貿大學尼泊爾研究中心副教授張樹彬翻譯全文，以資觀察者網讀者參考。****】

尼泊爾頒佈新憲法的時候，世界上許多國家表示歡迎，認為新憲法是一個里程碑。但是我們的南方鄰國印度，卻只是“注意”到了尼泊爾頒佈新憲法。沒有人將印度的所謂“注意”預想為一個跡象，即暗藏着它在未來幾天、想要通過對尼泊爾禁運引發人道主義危機的意圖。自稱為“世界上最大民主國家”的印度，竟然質疑一個主權國家的制憲會議超過90%贊成票通過的憲法。更為糟糕的是，印度甚至還對尼泊爾憲法提出了建議修改條款的清單。

幕後動機

尼泊爾有一個流行的諺語説，看不見自己身體上的水牛卻能注意到別人身上的蝨子。這個諺語很好地解釋了我們鄰國印度的行為。當其修改尼泊爾憲法建議的清單被全部拒絕後，印度便訴諸於關閉交通線路、逐步強化對尼泊爾的經濟封鎖的冷戰時期的戰略。尼泊爾作為內陸國有權通過印度進行貿易與運輸。但是，具有諷刺意味的是，一年前在尼泊爾議會進行HIT演講的同一個人，現在卻正在通過實施封鎖、派人滲入尼泊爾南部示威和干涉鄰國內政來“打擊”尼泊爾[注]。

關鍵問題是：印度封鎖尼泊爾背後的緣由是什麼？不像印度媒體所描繪的，這樣做是為了保護尼泊爾特萊地區示威少數民族的權利。印度絕對不會這麼做，因為這樣會對其自己境內的少數民族和邦產生自食其果的不良效果。印度這次封鎖行動背後的理由，其實是為了控制尼泊爾的水資源。然而印度的通盤計劃被尼泊爾新憲法對公民權的規定和對提議的聯邦省的劃界挫敗了。與之相關的問題是：這兩個憲法條款如何挫敗了印度的計劃？

全是為了水

首先，尼泊爾新憲法關於公民權的條款規定説，男性可以將他們的公民權傳給子女，但是嫁給外國公民的婦女卻不可以將她們的公民權傳給子女，她們的子女只能通過歸化入籍成為尼泊爾公民。該條款還規定，歸化入籍公民不得擔任尼泊爾的高級政治職務和安全部門職務。因為特萊地區與印度有緊密的文化聯繫，尼泊爾有許多歸化入籍的公民，印度希望這些人可以在政治上達到最高層，包括提議中的聯邦省和安全部隊的首長，以便印度可以控制尼泊爾的水資源。

其次，為了理解水資源政治和特萊地區聯邦省劃界的關係，必須瞭解尼泊爾的三大河流——科西河（Koshi）、格爾納利河（Karnali）和納拉亞尼河（甘達基河）（Narayani (Gandaki)）。科西河位於尼泊爾東部，流入印度的比哈爾邦（Bihar）東北部和米提拉（Mithila）東部，匯入恆河（the Ganges）。格爾納利河位於尼泊爾遠西部，向東南流經印度的北方邦（Uttar Pradesh）和比哈爾邦，匯入恆河。納拉亞尼河位於尼泊爾中部，流向東南方向，穿越比哈爾邦的恆河平原（the Gangetic plains）。科西河、格爾納利河和納拉亞尼河平均水流量分別為2,166、2,990和1,760立方米每秒。相比之下，埃及尼羅河（the Nile River）的平均水流量是2,830立方米每秒。

此圖清晰顯示了尼泊爾的三大河流

獲得對這些河流的控制意味着比哈爾邦和北方邦在降雨量低的旱季也可以有源源不斷的水流進行灌溉，在雨季可以控制上游水流以保護這些印度邦不被洪水淹沒。此外，這些河流的流域還可以生產25000兆瓦水電。印度需要這些水資源和電力來保證其發展和經濟增長。印度的理想是希望整個特萊地區成為一個單獨的省，而當這個建議不被尼泊爾考慮的時候，印度又建議在特萊地區組建兩個省，以方便印度與這些河流流經的兩個省交涉。然而尼泊爾領導層敏鋭地洞悉印度這個通盤計劃，為了維護國家的完整和水資源的公平分配，他們把聯邦省劃界為六個省都包含一部分特萊地區。這種聯邦結構下，印度通過特萊地區一兩個省控制尼泊爾水資源的夢想就粉碎了。

棕色即為特萊地區，主要是平原，人口也最多

而且，在憲法關於省界劃分和公民權的規定上的任何妥協，對於尼泊爾的國家完整、主權和全面發展而言都是自取滅亡，因為尼泊爾唯一的依靠就是水資源和農業資源。憲法有瑕疵，政府已經準備好在不影響國家的主權和領土完整的情況下進行必要修改。示威者的一些要求是正當的。然而，印度的干涉和直接支持，以及派印度人在尼泊爾國土上參加示威，降低了這些示威的正當性。

有組織的虛偽

令人震驚的是國際社會和種種權利的提倡者對印度封鎖尼泊爾保持沉默，除了幾個人之外，幾乎沒有人敢於針對印度對尼泊爾的嚴重干涉表達幾句反對的意見。他們大多數依然只是這次印度對尼泊爾封鎖的表演的看客。印度市場的力量是國際社會保持沉默的主要原因嗎？老實説，答案是肯定的。印度因為經濟不斷發展、人口持續增長，已經是一個巨大的市場。因此，沒有人想要通過提出一個被大地震破壞且市場規模很小的經濟小國的關切而引起印度的反感。

這使我想起另一個英語諺語，人們必須躬行己説，言行一致。國際社會踐行其所倡導的説詞了嗎？根本沒有。在尼泊爾最需要他們的時候，那些高喊人權、主張內陸國的國家主權、發展權和對尼泊爾震後重建許下承諾、表示支持的人們，哪裏去了？就國際社會而言，不代表尼泊爾仗義執言，難道不是自私嗎？國際社會的沉默有可能被打破，還是在這個全球化的世界上尼泊爾依然不得不獨自應對印度的封鎖？如果這就是國際社會希望的像尼泊爾這樣一個內陸小國的命運，那麼所有那些條約、公約和權利的倡導還有什麼用？還是國際社會只想把利益送給像印度這樣的大國？打破國際社會的沉默能夠幫助尼泊爾迅速從國內衝突和大地震的影響中恢復，並且隨着憲法的頒佈施行，朝着盼望已久的發展前進。

註釋：

HIT是指Highway, I-way和Transway三個英文單詞的字首字母。印度總理莫迪在就任之後2014年月3日至4日訪問尼泊爾，在尼泊爾制憲會議發表演講時説：“I want to hit Nepal.” [參見《印度時報》報道Modi announces $1 billion concessional line of credit to Nepal] “Nepal needs ‘HIT’ - Highways - Infoways - Transways and we will support you in all these.”[參見尼泊爾《共和國報》報道Modi mesmerizes Nepal with eloquent speech (with major highlights) ]表示印度希望幫助尼泊爾建設基礎設施，贏得尼泊爾制憲會議成員的熱烈歡呼，也廣受尼泊爾民眾稱讚。——譯註

作者賈亞·拉米查恩是尼泊爾公共衞生專家

（河北經貿大學外語部 河北經貿大學尼泊爾研究中心 張樹彬 譯）

本文系觀察者網獨家稿件，文章內容純屬作者個人觀點，不代表平台觀點，未經授權，不得轉載，否則將追究法律責任。關注觀察者網微信guanchacn，每日閲讀趣味文章。

Breaking the silence

India has its own interest behind the blockade but why has the international community not spoken about it?

-JAYA LAMICHHANE

When Nepal promulgated its new constitution, many countries welcomed it as a milestone, but our southern neighbour India only “noted” it. Nobody foresaw India’s ‘note’ as an indication of its intention to trigger a humanitarian crisis through a blockade in days to come. It is an irony that a country which calls itself the world’s largest democracy has questioned a sovereign country which has promulgated its constitution with the approval of more than 90 percent of its Constituent Assembly. To make matters worse, India even provided a list of amendments to Nepal’s constitution.

Hidden agenda

There is a popular proverb in Nepal about not seeing a buffalo on one’s body but noticing a louse on another person. This proverb best explains the behaviour of our neighbour. When India’s list of amendments was rejected outright, it resorted to a Cold War-era strategy of mounting an economic blockade by closing transit routes. Nepal as a landlocked country has rights to trade and transport. But ironically, the same person who lectured on the HIT (hydropower, information technology and transportation) strategy of development in Nepal’s Parliament a year ago is now “hitting” the country by imposing a blockade, sending people to infiltrate the demonstrations and interfering in its neighbour’s internal politics.

The million dollar question is: What is the reason behind this? It’s not, as portrayed in the Indian media, about protecting the rights of minorities who have been demonstrating in parts of the Tarai. India will never want to do this as it can have a boomerang effect in terms of its own minorities and states. The reason behind this action is to control Nepal’s water resources. However, India’s game plan has been thwarted by the provision of citizenship rights in the constitution and the proposed demarcation of federal states. A pertinent question is how did these two things thwart the plan?

All about water

First, the citizenship provision in the constitution says that men can pass on their Nepali citizenship to their children, but women married to foreign nationals cannot do so and their children can become Nepalis only by naturalisation. The provision also states that naturalised citizens cannot assume high political and security offices. As there are many naturalised citizens in Nepal due to their close cultural relations in the Tarai, India wants them to reach the highest levels in politics, including the head of the proposed federal states and the security forces so that it can control Nepal’s water resources.

Second, in order to unders tand the relationship between water politics and the demarcation of the federal states in the Tarai, one has to have an understanding of Nepal’s three big rivers—Koshi, Karnali and Narayani (Gandaki). First, the Koshi lies in eastern Nepal and flows to northeast Bihar and eastern Mithila to join the Ganges. Second, the Karnali in far western Nepal flows southeast through Uttar Pradesh and Bihar to join the Ganges. Finally, the Narayani in central Nepal flows southeast across the Gangetic plains of Bihar state. The average water flow of the Koshi, Karnali and Narayani is 2,166, 2,990 and 1,760 cubic metres per second respectively. In comparison, the average water flow of the Nile River is 2,830 cubic metres per second.

Gaining control of these rivers means an uninterrupted supply of water for irrigation in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh during the low seasons and control of the upstream flow during the rainy season to protect these Indian states from floods. In addition, these river basins have a capacity to produce more than 25,000 MW of hydropower. India needs this water resource and power for its development and economic growth. Ideally, India wanted the entire Tarai to be a single state, and when this was not even considered, two states were proposed in the Tarai so that India could deal with these two states through which these rivers flow. However, the Nepali leadership smartly understood the game plan, and in order to maintain national integrity and equitable distribution of natural resources, they have demarcated the federal states in such a way that the six states are linked with the Tarai. With this federal structure, India’s dream of controlling the water resources through one or two states in the Tarai was shattered.

Furthermore, any compromise on the demarcation of states and citizenship rights in the constitution will be suicidal for Nepal’s national integrity, sovereignty and overall development, which is solely dependent on water and agricultural resources. There are some flaws in the constitution, and the government is ready to make the necessary amendments without affecting national sovereignty and integrity. There are some valid demands of some of the protestors, however, India’s interference and involvement by directly supporting and sending Indians to participate in the protests on Nepali soil has diluted these demonstrations.

Organised hypocrisy

It is shocking that the global community and advocates of rights have remained silent on this situation and no one except a few have dared to express a few words against India’s gross interference in Nepal. A majority of them have remained as mere spectators in this show of blockade in Nepal. Is the power of the Indian market the primary cause for this silence? The honest answer is a yes as India is a huge market because of its growing economy and population. Thus, no one wants to antagonise India by raising the concerns of a small country, devastated by a massive earthquake and with a very small market economy.

This reminds me of another proverb in English which says that you must practice what you preach. Is the global community practicing what it is preaching? Not at all. Where are those voices for human rights, sovereign rights of landlocked countries, rights of development and the commitments and support for reconstruction at a time when Nepal needs them most? Isn’t it selfishness on the part of the world community to not speak on Nepal’s behalf? Is it possible to break the silence of the international community or will Nepal remain a lone warrior against the Indian blockade in this globalised world? If this is the fate the global community wants for a small landlocked country like Nepal, what is the use of all the treaties, conventions and advocacy of rights? Or are they intended to benefit only big countries like India? Breaking the silence of the international community can help Nepal recover quickly from the impact of the conflict and earthquake and proceed towards much awaited development with its new constitution.

Lamichhane is a public health specialist