Indo-Nepal Relations: Prospects and Retrospect

Nepal Diary

Mitra Bandhu Poudel

Introduction

Indo-Nepal relations can be seen from ‘Treta Yuga’, the time of Ramayana. The lord Ram of Ayodhya, India got married to the goddess Sita of Janakpur, Nepal. After the consolidation of scattered states into Nepal by the King Prithvi Narayan Shah in 18th Century, the first Anglo-Nepal trade pact was signed on the 1st March 1792. Historian DR Regmi writes, “It was no secret that the British were hostile to the growth of Gorkha power in Nepal and they had left no stone unturned to prevent it” (p.396) . However, in 1788-89 presents were exchanged between the Governor-General and the King of Nepal. Similarly, Nepali pilgrims and merchants were assured of the most cordial treatment in Indian centers. In October 1792, Sino-Nepal truce had been signed and the war with China was ended. By this there was no fear of an invasion from China. Nevertheless, Nepal came into conflict with Tibet in 1787-93, in 1855-57 and in 1929-31. In all the three cases, Nepal always came out a winner (p.425). The official relationship between India and Nepal started in 1816 through the treaty of Sugauli. In 1950, India and Nepal signed “Treaty of Peace and Friendship” that discarded all previous treaties. The days went on passing, 104 year old Rana hereditary rule came to an end in Nepal with Delhi Accord or Delhi agreement due to active political involvement of India bringing the King Tribhuvan,the Ranas and the Nepali Congress signed in February 1951. All the three parties were adjusted in the system. Unfortunately, a letter forwarded to Indian Prime Minister JL Nehru by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel on 7 November 1950 states that political and administrative steps that India should be taken to strengthen northern and north eastern frontiers would include whole of the border consisting of Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Darjeeling and tribal territory in Assam (Sarwar and Malik,p80) . Similarly, Indian Prime Minister JL Nehru’s statement in the Indian Parliament on December 06, 1950 indicates that Nepal’s independence seems only formal before Indian security. This shows India’s attitude towards Nepal’s sovereignty. In Nepal’s transition from Monarchy to till date, Indo-Nepal relations experienced many ups and downs even though both countries share a unique relationship due to geographical contiguity, religious and cultural similarities and social proximity. India’s reactive role on micro-(mis)management of Nepal’s internal politics was responsible to fuel anti-Indian sentiments in Nepal.

Twelve points understanding and politics of negation

In the initiation of Indian diplomats especially Shyam Saran and the political leaders of India considered to be anti-monarch force, the 12 points understanding was reached between the seven political parties and Nepal Communist Party (Maoists) on November 22, 2005 in Delhi. Since then, the entire political process has been monopolized by the Nepali political parties in the guidance of their Indian and European diplomats practicing the politics of negation. The accord does not say anything on secularism, federalism and abolition of monarchy. However, it does say autocratic monarchy which was practiced for 9 months during royal takeover.

Separation of Power?

Supreme Court sitting Chief Justice Khila Raj Regmi on 14th March 2013 was sworn in as Chairman of council of ministers in Nepal. Supreme Court was discredited as the principle of independent judiciary and separation of power was under threat. Supreme Court perceived to be the extension of the executive. The judiciary had remained independent during the King’s direct rule and Girija Prasad Koirala’s role being acted as head of both government and state after the end of royal takeover. Mr. Regmi’s appointment created dangerous precedents. Since then, judges were accountable to the political parties not to the court.

Indo-Nepal relations and blockade

India’s perceived ‘big brother’ attitude has been magnified through economic blockade in different time period.

The first blockade in 1970:

After Nepal built the Kodari Highway linking Kathmandu with Tatopani as a trade route with China, India obstructed in movement of goods into Nepal in 1970. However, it did not last long.

The second blockade in 1989:

The Indian blockade started from April 1989 lasted for 15 months on the pretext of buying Chinese weapons.

2015 Blockade:

The four month blockade on Indo-Nepal border that began immediately after Nepal promulgated a new constitution on September 20, 2015. This was the time, Nepali people were about to cope up with the tragic and devastating earthquake of April 2015. The blockade resulted in crisis in Nepal as fuel, medicines and other essential items but also accumulated hatred and anger towards Modi government. The taste of ‘first neighborhood’ policy was felt through this blockade.

Where should India need to retrospect?

Vacuum after sudden exit of Monarchy

240 year old Monarchy in Nepal ended in 28 May 2008 unconstitutionally as the bill in the constituent assembly was put by the government led by GP Koirala. The issue of Monarchy was not taken to the people. India, the architect of the 12 point agreement need to retrospect this incident in a fair manner taking into account of the understanding between the King and the political parties of Nepal. India needs to introspect the role of Dr. Karan Singh, the special envoy of the Prime Minister and Shyam Saran, the facilitator of the 12 point agreement.

Nepal’s involvement on BRI

On May 12, 2017 Nepal officially signed in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Economic blockade made Nepal think alternatives way for trade. In order to diversify the trade and remove asymmetric dependency on India, looking towards the north was compulsion for Nepal. According to one analyst, Nepal can be benefited from key infrastructures like railway, energy plant and gas pipe-line as well as road network in its northern part. Other opportunities can be telecommunications and ICT, cross border transmission lines, urban infrastructure and hydro-power projects.

After the sudden exit of Monarchy in Nepal, China’s concern became visible. So, the size and the volume of Chinese investments in Nepal can’t be felt lesser than India if not more. China has offered to allot US $150 million to the KP Oli government this year. Massive Chinese funding has been provided to build road connections and railway links.

Rise of Christianity and political nexus:

Nepal became the fertile land for religious conversion as the major political parties believed to be the recipient of huge amount of money from Church and donors. There is a case of diplomat being involved to influence Nepali law makers to spread Christianity in Nepal. The former British Ambassador to Nepal, Andrew Sparkes wrote an open letter to the members of Constituent Assembly asking them to include “conversion” as a fundamental right in Nepali constitution. He had to resign when the Nepal government reprimanded him for his open letter to CA members to lobby for the right to conversion . Nepal considered being the fastest Christian conversion country in Asia at 10.93 average annual growths. The proportion of Christian population in Nepal is expected to double by 2020 from 3.8 per cent now .

Reasons for the Communist victory in Nepal

Nepali author Prakash A Raj believes that India has been adversely affected in its relation with Nepal in the first two decades of the new millennium. India’s support to the Maoist insurgents and “brokering” of Twelve Point Accord between Seven Party Alliance on one hand and the Maoist insurgents in 2006 was the major factor in the success of the insurgency and overthrow of monarchy in Nepal. India was ruled by UPA alliance during this period. On the other hand the “unofficial” Indian blockade of Nepal because of its displeasure with new constitution caused hardship for the Nepali people. India was ruled by NDA alliance during this period. These were the contributing factors for communist victory in Nepal’s elections for local, provincial and national level in 2017.

Recent hurdles

BIMSTEC and Indo-Nepal relations

The fourth summit level meeting of Bay of Bangal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technological and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) recently held in Kathmandu with 18 point joint declaration. Strategically, China has been excluded from BIMSTEC that shares its common borders with Bhutan, India, Nepal and Myanmar. China may be a potential source of future rivalry and tension. BIMSTEC Summit and its spirit of ‘One region’ suffered a blow within days of summit. Nepal, the current chair of the body, withdrew from the Joint Military Exercise that began in Pune on September 10 after Prime Minister KP Oli was criticized at home for giving an impression that the country under him was aligning with a military block. Isolation of China and formation of a military sort of block against the letter and spirit of BIMSTEC would have been a dangerous proposition. In other words, letting one country to dictate or lead the regional initiative overtly or covertly will defeat the whole purpose of such a body being set up .

Asia Pacific Summit

The prominent journalist Yubaraj Ghimire writes in Deshsanchar (26 December, 2018) media in his regular column that on the 11th day of the 12 points agreement signed in the initiation of Shyam Saran, the founder of the Unification Church Sun Myung Moon addressed the leaders on 23 November 2005 in Kathmandu. After two weeks Nepal turned into secular country from the Hindu Kingdom, the self proclaimed Jesus daughter ‘Mother Moon’ addressed in the Birendra International Convention Hall on June 01, 2006. It is believed that Unification Church and the Western INGO’s invested huge amount of money during the past election in Nepal .The three days summit organized by Universal Peace Foundation ended with criticism in Kathmandu. According to media reports, police arrested more than sixty activists, mostly Hindus, for protesting against the government for hosting a Church sponsored event.

Displeasure on Yogi’s Visit: Nepali leaders’ dual standard

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanarh visited Janakpur as the chief guest during the customary wedding anniversary of Lord Ram and Sita, in the second week of December. Prior to his visit, Bimalendra Nidhi, vice-chairman of Nepali Congress, the main opposition party, and a former deputy PM of Nepal, said that Adityanath’s presence at the event would be “unfortunate”, since the Yogi is an open advocate of monarchy and the Hindu State. The reason Nepali Congress Vice President Bimlendra Nidhi believed to have put pressure on the Mahant of Ram Janaki temple to do whatever possible to cancel the recent visit of Yogi Adityanath. It is important to note that Nidhi and his Nepali Congress leaders believed to be under the influence and instruction of Shyam Saran, Western donors, Church and the Civil Society leaders to change Hindu Kingdom into secular republic without being the informed debate in Nepal.

Repercussions in Himalayan region

Former Nepali Finance Minister Prof. Madhukar SJB Rana writes to this author that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on November 28 re-designated China as a “country of particular concern” (CPC), pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act. For Nepal, the ratcheting up of tensions between Washington and Beijing over Tibet could not have come at a worse time. As part of China’s BRI, there are plans to extend the railway between Lhasa and Xigaze in Tibet to the Nepali capital of Kathmandu. A rail link to Lhasa would provide Nepal with more flexibility in its trade relations, opening up the Chinese ports of Tianjin, Shenzhen, Lianyungang and Zhanjiang as alternatives. Prof. Rana worried about this recent development further arguing that if China is forced to increase security in Tibet as a result of the US Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act, progress on the trans-Himalayan railway linking Lhasa to Kathmandu may be put in jeopardy.

For leaders

Leaders not being accountable, or their turning into ‘Dealers’ like unputdownable PL Singh repeatedly says, comes as a sad indicator of things a head. Democracy should not mean series of discredited rhetoric. Democracy is not only freedom of expression, but a road to economic prosperity as well.

The nefarious diatribe of those in power towards people in general and the media in particular shows the arrogance and intolerance of the rulers of both countries, that is antithesis of democracy. Absence of a culture of inner party democracy and intolerance towards dissents and criticism will cause the growth of sycophancy in politics that only encourages the politics of negation.

Views from Nepal

Prof Ram Kumar Pandey, the President of International PEN Nepal Chapter argues that Nepal, the country having Siva civilization, has rich heritages of the Himalayan heights. China and India geologically stable in the north and tectonically pushing from the south. As a country of Veda and Buddha Nepal is the center of the human civilization of the South Asia. This pivotal location as forehead of South Asia, Prof. Pandey further adds that Nepal expects cooperation but never accept any type of colonial imperialism. The Himalaya posses potentialities of all nature and culture diversities and people living here are most creative with strength of Gorkha and hard working genes. India and Nepal were not only good friends from the time of Rama and Sita but also son of Nepa, Lord Gautam Buddha spread knowledge and wisdom for the global peace visiting India. He recalls that Nepal gave birth to Bed Byasa, Janaka, Sita, Panini, Buddha and many Victoria Cross holders of the world war; further adding India knows that Nepal saved sovereignty and enjoying freedom since her birth. His observation suggests that there are two major conflicting aspects. First one is lacking farsighted political dealing with Nepal and social issues of more than dozens including border encroachment smuggling, drug and girl traffiking like many border problems. Indian political leaders some time forget Nepal as an independent, sovereign country. He concludes by saying that our neighbours China and India needto cooperate Nepal with clean heart and high wisdom so that no problem raise between three countries and cooperate each other to rise independently.

Similarly, research scholar and academician Ramesh Gyawali believes that reciprocal benefits and behavior are considered as the basics for foreign policy. But it has never worked in terms of India-Nepal relations. Mr. Gyawali argues that India has always played dominant role in this relation and Nepal is passing by inferiority complex syndrome which results in huge trade deficit, politically and internationally dominated, further adding, India alone cannot be blamed, as they are quite firm on their foreign policy regardless their political party and the governments. On the other hand, Nepal’s foreign policy, according to him, is unstable, and it depends upon the party, government and even the minister’s personal interests. Getting the benefit of having stable government, Mr Gyawali expects that Nepal can start it now and develop the new foreign policy abiding the charter of the United Nations and act accordingly so that India will be induced to behave as a good, respectful and reciprocal neighbor state which will help both the countries to maintain good relations in international order.

Way forward

It is important to note that Nepal’s Prime Minister’s rhetoric but weak delivery has been criticized day by day. Indian Prime Minister Modi’s popularity also evaporated very quickly in Nepal due to the blockade. As a matter of fact anti-Indian feelings reached a record high in Nepal. Beijing has focused its policies vis-a-vis Nepal by trying to reduce its dependence on India in political, economic and security arena (Chaturvedy, p.3). India, without being seen hegemonic, needs to minimize mistrust with Nepal. The positive impression would first be felt in Nepal that ‘India’s perceive big brother attitude’ is nothing more than the perception. A decade long Maoist insurgency from 1996, King Birendra and his family members’ assassination in 2001, King Gyanendra’s take over in 2005, India’s role as architect of 12 points agreement and insertion of secularism, federalism and republicanism in the constitution without being the public debate and monopoly of entire political process by major political parties of Nepal, culture of avoiding dissenting views or developing politics of negation are considered to be severe political setbacks in Nepal. Course correction would be first initiative where India holds moral authority to bring Indo-Nepal relation on right track. Appointment of the sitting chief justice Khil Raj Regmi as the Chairman of Council of minister in 14 March 2013 was one of the most controversial issues in Nepali history. India, the biggest democratic country could have suggested Nepal to follow democratic principle. By realizing these political anomalies, Nepal needs to understand India’s genuine security issues and control possible criminal activities. India also needs to respect Nepal’s sovereignty through actions not by mere words. In order to have mutual respects both countries should take pro-active roles to minimize trust deficit and strengthen bilateral relations.

(Mitra Bandhu Poudel is the Vice-President of Center for Diplomacy and Development, Principal at Little Angels’ College of Management- KU & the Editor in Chief, Nobel Business Review Kathmandu)

ends

© Scoop Media