Gopal Thapa
Former Chief of Protocol
Foreign Ministry of Nepal
One of the longtime Nepal-India relations observers, Dr. S.D. Muni has listed the constant and strategic variable as two fundamental elements influencing relations between the two countries.
He calls history, geography and culture as the “constant”, and the social, political and economic elements as “strategic” variables.
Ability to balance these elements, he argues, can result in the most harmonious relations between the two countries.
He sees less of a problem in the constant elements than those from the strategic ones.
To some extent, these arguments sound tenable.
Nevertheless, they fail to capture the contemporary realities and the changes of profound magnitude our relations have undergone in the last two decades, beginning the 90s, to be more specific.
Even as we emphasize the similarity of history and geography, we often fail to focus on the range of inherent differences that our relations are characterized with.
The sheer territorial and population size of India has always been an element of awe for Nepal.
The level of economic development, social awakening, educational progress and the maturity of democratic institutions there are other fear – escalating factors.
Nepal is surrounded by India on three sides.
Her economic and trade relations are always skewed towards India.
In terms of culture as well, Indian visibility is ubiquitous.
For example, Indian films and television serial programs have, of late, literally inundated every Nepali home.
Even ads for Nepali products have had notorious Indian impacts.
These realities have largely shaped our perceptions about India and have consequences, good and bad, on our overall relations.
No doubt, both countries recognize the differences in perceptions about our relations.
However, it must be said that both have been unable to take advantage from the similarities, nor have there been serious and genuine attempts, at removing the lingering perceptions of differences, more from Nepal and equally from India, too.
Catch-up, reactive foreign policy:
One may ask why Nepal only has to be seen making efforts more than India in helping remove some of the persistent misperceptions, because these misperceptions have harmed relations of both countries.
I think, it is Nepal, not India, that will suffer more from these misperceptions.
There are a few things that our political leaders, in or out of power, must bear in mind, I think, first, they should be seen as being proactive in conducting all international relations, including bilateral relations with India.
Nepal’s conduct of international, as well as bilateral relations, including those with India, or with other friendly countries have always been characterized by what can be called a “catch-up foreign policy”.
This is more so, when it comes to handling our bilateral relations with India.
We tend to react only after, or in response to what India does.
As a matter of fact, pursuit of reactive or catch-up foreign policy has blunted our diplomatic ability to foresee clearly contemporary international, economic, social and strategic issues with implications for Nepal.
Credible and consistent behavior:
Secondly, our political leaders’ behavior and attitude have always been inconsistent and erratic.
They say one thing when in power and totally different things out of power as suits them.
These flip-flop attitudes on the part of our political leaders have made them highly unreliable in the eyes of the Indian establishment, and those of other friendly countries.
Trust is one of the most effective tools in the conduct of foreign policy through diplomacy.
Diplomatic behavior of a leader that is devoid of trust costs the country heavily.
That is one of the reasons why our political leaders are neither taken seriously nor trusted by the Indian establishment.
It is sad that our leaders have been gradually losing trust of our both neighbors and international community.
They must know that only by displaying consistent and credible behavior can they gain international trust and respectability for them and for the country.
The fate of US government Millennium Challenge Corporation’s grant project, MC Compact-Nepal, negotiated under the time of three different Prime ministers and signed in 2017 is now hanging in the balance of uncertainty.
This is one of many examples of our political leaders’ and the government’s erratic, inconsistent and untrustworthy behavior in handling as sensitive a matter as foreign policy.
There is a mounting campaign of disinformation and lies being spread in the public now at the covert bidding of some of the very political leaders who saw nothing wrong with the Nepal Compact earlier.
An out and out an infrastructure development project agreement has now been fallen victim to filthy domestic intraparty infightings and to an entirely unfounded geopolitical concerns of some.
In a nut shell, post-90s and to date, Nepal’s India policy has thus remained mired in inconsistency, incoherence and bereft of national consensus.
Whatever policy we may have is also characterized by excessive dominance of incompetent, visionless and opportunist geriatric political leaders, and supine and petrified bureaucracy.
In the absence of a consensus policy, each political party attempts at defining Nepal-India relations from the standpoints of its own personal and party interest.
The tendency quite common among many of our political parties of praising India to the sky when things are favorable and blaming her when things go against them is due mainly to the lack of a coherent and bipartisan foreign policy.
Frequent exhibition of such a short-sighted and selfish attitude to interpret our bilateral relations according to their whims is responsible to a great extent for generating misunderstanding, thus putting our bilateral relations under constant strains.
Flawed handling of relations:
India’s handling of relations with Nepal is also quite flawed, as is admitted by many independent thinking Indian intellectuals.
One must not, therefore, lose sight of the fact that the reference of cultural and historical closeness and geographical proximity alone wouldn’t make much of a sense unless accompanied by serious and practical efforts on the ground to render our relations more productive and mutually beneficial.
As far as Nepal is concerned, the general perception is that more than six decades of her close and extensive engagements with India have failed to institutionalize democracy and strengthen democratic institutions to bring about peace, political stability and, most importantly, economic prosperity.
The Janaandolan-2 did away with the two pillar political system of multiparty democracy and Constitutional Monarchy.
It was replaced with a new Federal Democratic Republic political set-up. However, in the last three decades, the promise of a new Nepal under the Federal Republic dispensation has remained a mere pipe dream.
On the contrary, Nepal’s national independence, sovereignty and stability had never been threatened as much as they have now been.
A detached introspection on the Nepal’s current situation presents a rather dismal picture.
The mood of common people is one of anger, frustration and disillusionment.
Today, one of the many questions haunting the minds of the same people that came out on the street in a drove in support of the Janaandolan-2 is; “The former king did make serious errors by directly overtaking, but he already paid too dear a price for that.
But did the country gain anything out of the changes?
Nepal’s peace and stability would have perhaps remained secure under the two pillar theory, based on multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy”.
This may sound unpalatable to our political leaders whose preferred predilection has been to claim a wholesale credit for bringing about the changes, without concurrently owning up the mess they have created.
All the same, truth must be told, however bitter it may taste.
Having sacrificed the institution of monarchy and parliamentary democracy in the name of a better political dispensation, which is nowhere in sight, Nepal stands at a crossroads today unable to define its future course.
Today, the 12- point, peace process India helped to broker and touted by those who took part in this process the bedrock of the present political system is in danger of losing its moorings.
In retrospect, it can be fairly assumed that the royal takeover in 1960, the demolition of “multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy” system of governance as practiced after the restoration of democracy in 1990 and the current state of anarchy that Nepal is going through are partially the consequences of the highly flawed, inconsistent and ambivalent Indian policy pursuit in Nepal.
Benign neglect:
Nepal-India relations, continue to smart under a benign apathy, or neglect of Indian political leaders in power, as well as the Indian bureaucracy’s brash, inflexible, inconsistent and intolerant behaviors.
I cite two glaring examples of such Indian double-standard and neglects. One is its unwillingness to sit in negotiation to resolve the dispute on the Nepalese territories of Kalapani, Lipulek and Limpiyadhura, illegally and unilaterally occupied by India.
The other pertains its lack of interest to accept and own- up the Eminent Persons’ Group(EPG) Report, prepared at the initiatives of the prime ministers of both countries.
Earlier, foreign policy experts in Nepal took the lack of Indian Prime minister’s visit to Nepal for many years as a sign of benign neglect of Indian leadership to Nepal.
It was argued that periodic exchange of high-level visits were the important features of maintaining good diplomatic relations, and more so in the neighborhood relation management and that such visits offered an informal venue for frank exchange of views on a wide array of issues, thereby contributing to a better understanding of each other’s aspirations and expectations.
But that myth was shattered when Narendra Modi visited Nepal, soon after he became the Prime Minister.
Far from any perceptible improvements, our bilateral went through one of the worst times.
Nepal had to bear the brunt of India-imposed economic blockade, impacts of which still reverberate in the minds of common Nepalese people because of the economic and other sufferings that they had to endure.
This harsh measure that Modi government took was severely criticized even in India too.
Conclusion:
It is often said and rightly so, that Nepal – India relations have symbiotic characters.
India has a vital stake in the peace, and political stability of Nepal.
Likewise, Nepal’s peace, prosperity, economic development, democracy and democratic institution consolidation efforts are in a great measure contingent upon Indian cooperation, assistance, goodwill and understanding.
Hence, our efforts have to be to win India’s confidence through the demonstration of consistent, credible and mature behavior.
India’s influences have grown over the years, not only in Nepal but also in the entire South Asian region.
This is but natural for reason of its rapidly emerging as a global economic power.
It is a common phenomenon in international relations that no sooner a particular country gains internal strength than its external power projection becomes a necessary fact.
It is true that power and success are difficult to attain, but once achieved, they are invariably accompanied by equally formidable challenges and threats, both internal and external.
Recent events have shown that India’s internal security, peace, stability and democracy have come under tremendous threats along with its increase in economic, political and military clout.
Its legitimate security concerns and security sensitivities have, therefore, definitely gone up requiring it to exercise greater vigilance at home and within its neighborhood.
As a long-time and dependable neighbor, Nepal must recognize and seek to accommodate the legitimate Indian security concerns, as far as possible.
But in doing so, we must place our own national interest protection needs at the center.
We must ensure that in no way should our cooperation come at the expense of our own vital national interests.
Balanced and harmonious relations require bold, imaginative and out-of-box thinking. Indian politicians in power shouldn’t leave as important relations as ours entirely at the whims and vagaries of their bureaucracy.
In the future, India’s policy on Nepal must be informed by greater tolerance, flexibility and consistent pattern of behavior.
Nepal, on the other hand urgently needs to ensure political stability and peace. A foreign policy that enjoys national consensus, particularly on India and China, has to be forged without further delay.
Our new India policy must remove all the inconsistencies and ambivalences and aim at prioritizing our agendas for a long-term and constructive bilateral engagement, with a new vision and thinking.
On the basis of these new thinking, both countries can and should begin to build a new architecture of relations which would be based on genuine partnership, and which would, among others, make efforts for democracy and democratic institution consolidation in Nepal, expedite economic development, particularly by harnessing Nepal’s abundant water resources for mutual economic benefits, focus on better management of our open and porous border to render it more of a boon than a bane and promote greater interface between intellectuals of both countries for free and frank exchange of ideas and information on the crucial areas of our interests.
End Text.
# Contact address of the distinguished author: bhimsen29@gmail.com