Recent visit of Nepalese Prime Minister Prachnada to India and his frank talks with Indian leaders on matters concerning bilateral, regional and global issues augur well for widening the scope of improvement of friendly relations between the two countries. For the past years, massive changes have taken place within Nepal and these changes impact upon Kathmandu’s relations with New Delhi in many ways.
Transformation of Nepal from Monarchy to multi-party democracy with Maoists Party at the helm of affairs at present, growing anti-India activities in Nepal, political instability due to inter and intra-party politics, growing demand in Kathmandu for reviewing Indo-Nepal Treaty etc. are certain issues which worry the observers. Viewed in a broad spectrum, the structural and strategic transformation in relations between India and Nepal can be attributed to following three main factors.
Firstly, the restoration of multi-party democracy in Nepal, instead of leading the ties between the two countries to a higher plane, has, in fact, affected relations because of internal pulls within Nepal. The Nepalese political parties have exploited anti-Indian sentiments for their own political purposes, leading to a deterioration of relations between the two countries.
Secondly, the exigencies of the process of globalization, like market expansion and the need for the management of natural resources, especially for Nepal, have increased the need for better relationship between New Delhi and Kathmandu. Thus, though the internal political factors hinder the relationship between the two countries, larger economic factors, in the future may force both the countries towards a better understanding.
Thirdly, particularly inside Nepal, there is a paradigm shift in the strategic framework, eliciting positive response from the non-state actors – the various Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working on social, economic and environmental issues in the form of enormous pressure on Nepal’s foreign policy options especially towards India.
It is interesting to note that soon after taking over as Prime Minister of Nepal, Prachanda visited Beijing as his first port of call instead of Delhi. However, on his return to Kathmandu from his four-day trip to China, Prime Minister Prachanda said that his Beijing visit “was not a political one,” and “My first political and formal visit will be to India.” Nonetheless, observers in Kathmandu and New Delhi were critical of Prachanda’s visit to China because India invited him earlier and New Delhi is traditionally a new Nepalese leader’s first port of call.
It is noteworthy that in recent weeks, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) leaders, including Prachanda, have repeatedly called for a review of all treaties between India and Nepal, including the key 1950 security and trade accord. India is Nepal’s biggest trading partner, exporting $1.8 billion of goods and importing $654 million in the year to July 2007. Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is ideologically closer to Beijing than to New Delhi, and it is natural for its leader to accord priority to China and New Delhi might have felt let-down on this issue.
Prime Minister Prachanda’s public statement the other day that he didn’t sign any agreements on development or economic issues while in Beijing, was perhaps aimed at allaying New Delhi’s misapprehensions just before his forthcoming visit to India.
Nepal’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Upendra Yadav, while speaking at the Reporters Club in Kathmandu on 24 August 2008, had said his government would work towards maintaining equidistance between the two giant neighbours – India and China. The dynamics of diplomatic ties would change in the new context and that government would maintain balanced relations with the neighbours.
Mentioning that foreign diplomats in the past issued statements by breaching diplomatic norms, the Foreign Minister said the new government would not entertain such practices: “Foreigners did try to influence Nepal’s politics. We will now create a situation where in such things will not happen.”
He also defended Prime Minister Prachanda’s tour to China, saying the visit was meant to represent the country in the closing ceremony of Beijing Olympic and not intended to keep India at a distance. He added that the visit would help consolidate the ties between the two countries.
The Nepalese Foreign Minister Upendra Yadav is recently in New Delhi, prior to the visit of Prachanda to India, to take part in the meeting of BIMSTEC ministers. During his visit, FM Yadav held talks regarding the permanent solution of Kosi problem with Indian leaders and senior government officials. The recent flood in Kosi due to the breakage of an embankment has displaced tens of thousands of people both in Nepal and in Bihar state of India.
The visit of Nepal’s Foreign Minister to India had prepared the ground for Nepalese Prime Minister Prachanda’s impending visit to India by removing bottlenecks that could have emerged, particularly in the wake of Prachanda’s visit to Beijing before visiting New Delhi as well as other issues. There is no consistency in the Nepalese policy towards India on account of many dissentions at both intra-party and inter-party levels.
Economic and Environmental Issues
The major factor impacting upon the Indo-Nepal economic relations is the Balance of Trade, which is favouring India. Ninety-five percentage of Nepal’s trade is conducted through the Calcutta port, nearly 40 percentage of the employment generated in Nepal is through Indian investments and India remains the major investor in Nepal. On environmental issues, though the Mahakali Treaty is a major landmark between the two countries, nothing significant has been achieved after the signing of the treaty. The principles surrounding the treaty itself have become controversial in Nepal as the political parties inside Nepal are criticizing India, though the non-state actors have been pressing for the implementation of the treaty.
Delay in ratification of bilateral treaties by Nepal has been a bone of contention between India and Nepal. This is mainly due to the presence of Article 127 (2) in the Nepalese Constitution. The ratification of the Mahakali Treaty is delayed because of its linkage with Kalapani. While sorting out the issues pertaining to the Mahakali Treaty, both countries should ensure speedy and sincere implementation of the agreements amicably reached.
Political Issues
Political issues impacting upon bilateral relations, inter alia, include the future of 1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty, anti-India activities from Nepal’s soil, and China factor, apart from some other smaller issues. There have been varied voices in Kathmandu with regard to the amendment or the abrogation of the 1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty. Though there have been talks inside Nepal, till today India has not received any formal communication from Nepal regarding the issue. During his recent visit to India, Prime Minister Prachanda also echoed similar sentiments without clarifying which aspect of the said treaty needs to be abrogated or amended.
The Indo-Nepal Friendship Treaty has four separate elements—political, economic, people-to-people and security. Kathmandu has never expressed its willingness in favour of abrogation of the said treaty, but it wants it only to be amended. However, there is no official proposal for the amendment. This is mainly due to lack of consensus within the government. The main area of amendment present dispensation in Nepal wishes is on “special clause”, as they are extremely sensitive about it.
At this juncture, India needs not to pursue the past policy of appeasement as the same has seldom paid good dividends for India. Since Nepal presently is interested in amending the treaty, it is worthwhile to constitute a high-power joint working group to be headed by the Foreign Secretaries of both countries to sort out this issue to the mutual satisfaction of the two countries.
The second irritating political issue, especially from India’s point of view, pertains to the ISI activities in Nepal against India. Today in Nepal there is no constituency for India, which once used to be very strong comprising especially of academicians who were educated in India and military personnel, who had close relations with Indian Army. India should nurture this constituency to counter anti-India elements inside Nepal.
Nepal’s soil has frequently been used for anti-India activities by Pakistan and Bangladesh. Undoubtedly, during his recent visit to India, the Prime Minister of Nepal did touch on this issue by assuring that his Government would see to it that Nepal’s soil would not be allowed for anti-India activities by any one. However, India should continue to impress upon Nepal frequently to address this issue seriously keeping in view India’s sensitivities in this regard.
The presence of anti-Indianess in Maoists of Nepal is also due to instigation by the foreign hand in the movement. Initially, the Maoist insurgency had no connection with the backwardness in Nepal, but after assuming reins of power, the Maoists have been trying to project their pro-poor image in order find acceptability among them and to shun isolation.
Of late, there has been rapid growth of Muslim population in Nepal is rapid and there is also increase in Muslim NGOs with the help of funds pouring in from West Asia. Because of this the Islamic linkages with Pakistan and Bangladesh are increasing. This provides fertile ground for the ISI and Bangladesh outfits to deepen their roots in Nepal and indulge in anti-India activities which can seriously jeopardize bilateral relations between the two countries.
China has a safe constituency in Nepal irrespective of political turmoil and changes. As compared to India, China has built strategic roads along Nepal-China border and provides economic and arms assistance to Nepal. Besides, the present Maoists-led government may be more inclined towards Beijing ideologically and strategically as can be discerned from Prachand’s first visit to Beijing instead of Delhi soon after assuming power.
India’s lack of clear policy towards Nepal has afforded China to step in and entrench its roots deeper on Nepal’s soil. India started economic blockade in 1980s but failed to develop leverages vis-a-vis Nepal. It also failed to tap the economic resources of Nepal. This is mainly due to lack of effective working of our political mechanisms in Nepal. And this failure or negligence on India’s part was capitalized by China which gradually made inroads into Nepal to carve out its own constituency.
It is not that Nepal is encouraging ISI activities in its soil. In fact, it wants to curb the activities but lacks the mechanism to do so. The other factor is political instability. The Nepalese Government has been busy surviving and hence, it has no time for other matters.
In the past, Nepalese Monarchy was basically cautious about Indian interests. After the monarchy was restored in 1960 the first country to be visited by the Nepalese King was not India but China. The successive Kings coined terms like “equi-distance” and “zone of peace”, this explicitly meant to maintain distance from India. On the other hand, Nepal became very active in its China policy. Chinese entrepreneurs were allowed to do business in the Terai region; a proposal for opening another trading route and laying two more roads were made.
Thus, India’s failure proved to be China’s success and now it is extremely difficult for New Delhi to mitigate Chinese influence and plant its own there, especially when Maoists are in power in Kathmandu.
Conclusion
Undoubtedly, a strong, stable, democratic and peaceful Nepal is an asset for India. Therefore, India as a big neighbour should do what it can to help Nepal meet its economic and technical requirements. At the same time, New Delhi will have to convince the new dispensation about its seriousness of not tolerating anti-India tirade being launched from the soil of Nepal. India should discard the policy of undue pampering but work out a more realistic approach based on reciprocity.
Concurrently, New Delhi should ensure Kathmandu of all possible help, economic as well as technological, to help the new government to attain its goal of sustainable development. India can checkmate Chinese influence by forging closer relations with the new regime. This calls for a realistic policy based on reciprocity. Besides, the for a of SAARC and BIMSTEC etc should be utilized by India to involve Nepal along with it in strengthening regional cooperation.
By Dr. Arvind Kumar President India Water Foundation
