Dr. Arvind Kumar
A series of recent violent incidents along the India-Nepal border involving the local Nepalese population, mainly Madhesis, and the Nepali police have proved instrumental in envisaging a new low in Nepal-India relations – a relationship the two sides in better times often referred to as a ‘historic and special one’. The protesters in Nepal have been blocking the country’s border posts with India to build up pressure on the government for the speedy redressal of their grievances.
Being a landlocked country, Nepal is heavily dependent on India for supplies of essential goods and the ongoing protests along the border have made Nepal to reel under acute shortage of fuels, medicines and other items for over two months now. Use of force to end the blockade has resulted in series of violent incidents in which some protestors have reportedly lost their lives and many have sustained injuries.
Nepal has accused India of siding with the protesters and meddling in its internal affairs, a charge New Delhi has denied and while expressing grief at the loss of lives, India has called for a peaceful political solution of the problem. In the meanwhile, the UN Secretary-General has called on “all sides to resolve their differences in a peaceful and flexible manner and reiterates the support of the United Nations for Nepal’s efforts to build a democratic, inclusive, peaceful and prosperous future.”
Madhesis’ Grievances
When Nepal promulgated its new Constitution in September this year, the Madhesis, the Janajatis and the Tharus, who have been considered the disadvantaged groups, felt they were being left out in the new constitution even though lots of Madhesi voted in support of the new constitution. Undoubtedly, the Madhesis have accepted two Madhesi provinces instead of one; nevertheless, the disagreement, as per media reports, is only over five districts, three in the east (Sunsari, Morang and Jhapa) and two in the west (Kanchanpur and Kailali). Excluding Sunsari takes away the key border town of Biratnagar and the Kosi basin while Kailali has a large Tharu population which it shares with neighbouring Bardiya. However, these sentiments are not apparent over all these districts. Jhapa, for example has a majority of Hill Brahmins and Kshtiryas, who are vehemently opposed to being included in the Madhes state.
The Madhesis have also been aggrieved over their under-representation in the elected bodies under the new constitution as well as over the issue of citizenship. The United Democratic Madhes Front has been demanding representation of Madhesis in elected bodies and other state apparatus in proportion to their population, among other things.
According to media reports, ethnic Madhesi political parties, since the implementation of the new charter, have assembled large demonstrations that blocked border posts with India, including the main entry point at Birgunj. For weeks now, Indian border officials have also been preventing shipments of vital supplies from crossing the border, claiming that protests against Nepal’s constitution are putting Indian drivers’ lives in danger. On November 23, 2015, Nepalese lawmakers belonging to Madhes-based parties obstructed proceedings at the Parliament over the police firing following which the meeting was postponed. Lawmakers from the agitating group surrounded the rostrum and shouted slogans after the Speaker refused to grant time to Terai Madhes Democratic Party lawmaker Sarbendra Nath Shukla.
India’s Stance
India has been persistently asking Nepal government to resolve the crisis arising after the promulgation of the Constitution there. On 22 November 22, 2015, India expressed distress at the loss of lives in police firing in Nepal’s Terai region. Though there was no statement issued by India, but official spokesperson in the External Affairs ministry posted a brief tweet, “Upheavals, distressed at loss of lives in police firing in Saptari in Nepalese Terai last night. Political solution required” in resolving the differences over the new Constitution which Madhesis — the Indian-origin inhabitants of Nepal’s Terai region – are protesting over division of their ancestral homeland.
While criticising Nepal’s human rights record, especially in dealing with the Madhesi agitation at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in early November this year, India also demanded legal action against those guilty of human rights violations during the years of insurgency in Nepal — India had mediated the Maoists joining mainstream politics, the insurgents who had raised arms against the state.
As per media reports, India has also apparently succeeded in getting Britain to toe its line on the constitution that Nepal promulgated on September 20. A joint statement issued by Britain and India during Prime Minister Modi’s recent visit to the UK, advised Nepal to address the prevailing grievances of different sections of the people and create a condition for stability and economic prosperity. India, which has always treated Nepal as a country within ‘its sphere of influence’, has raised issues concerning its neighbour in world forums for the first time.
The new dispensation in Kathmandu headed by Prime Minister K P Oli, has not taken India’s reactions kindly. The Nepalese PM chose to respond to both issues as well as the controversial blockade in his speech in Kathmandu on November 22 and his speech had a few underlying messages: India was undermining Nepal’s sovereignty and its right as a landlocked country; it was not respecting Nepal’s right to create its own constitution; because of the obstruction in supplies, pregnant women and patients in need of surgery, and children were badly hit and that the Nepalese public blamed India for the current situation.
While lavishing praise for China as a friend-in-need having provided fuel and other commodities in the hour of crisis, Nepalese PM issued a warning to India: Nepal was not going to depend solely on India for trade and supply any longer—currently, around 70 per cent of external trade is with India.
Some experts feel that undoubtedly ‘the ‘blockade’ by India has taken place in the past as well, with the longest one lasting for 19 months in 1988-89; nonetheless, the criticism of India was never as strident as now. China’s stepping in to assist Nepal, and India taking issues to international forums, are two developments in the Indo-Nepal bilateral relations that may have long term consequences.
China Factor
China factor looms large in India-Nepal relations. China is reported to have supplied approximately 1,000 metric tonnes of petroleum to Nepal in an attempt to rescue the nation, hit hard by shortages of fuel and other essential commodities for over a month now after India declared that its vehicles ferrying goods across the border into Nepal were not safe.
India has frequently said that the Madhesi agitation in Nepal’s Terai is ‘a political problem and needs a political solution’. Meanwhile, China has asserted that it would do everything to support Nepal’s ‘geographical integrity and sovereignty’. Such is the difference in approach of Nepal’s two immediate neighbours. This is not the first Indian blockade but there has been a change in approach. China’s voluntary offer this time to supply fuel exhibits Beijing’s growing interest in Nepal as India emerges in the public mind more as country ‘interfering’ in the internal affairs of the country – as in Terai.
Some media reports indicate that Rajendra Mahato, a leader of the Madeshi movement has referred to China as ‘our enemy’ with his supporters burning the Chinese flag and this is something that China has not taken kindly. While, the Nepal government has said clearly that the agitation and blockade of checkpoints by Madhesi leaders has the open support of India, it fears that the anti-China stance of the Madhesi leaders may further complicate problems in Nepal.
Way Forward
The ongoing turmoil in Nepal is a crucial test for India’s diplomacy. Undoubtedly, India and Nepal have had close ties; nonetheless, the political uncertainty in Nepal often fueled anti-Indian sentiments, thereby, allowing China enough space to enhance its presence and even offer financial assistance. By 2013, China had overtaken India as Nepal’s biggest foreign investor with its funding of a $1.6 billion hydropower project – one of country’s biggest external investments.
Modi government’s initial steps in the form of two visits to Nepal by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and pledging $1 billion for reconstruction after the earthquake were often interpreted as success of Indian diplomacy vis-à-vis Nepal. One expert has opined that at that juncture the Modi government had an opportunity to reshape the contours of New Delhi’s relations with Kathmandu at a time when India seems to be losing ground in Nepal to China.
The ongoing Madhesi protests pose a predicament for Indian diplomacy. New Delhi is called upon to tread a cautious approach that should help in tackling the prevalent crisis without undermining the interests of the agitating Madhesis and at the same time not annoying Kathmandu. Any mishandling of the situation entails the potential of allowing China to deepen its roots at India’s expense.
