By Devendra Shrestha

Recently Professor Surya P. Subedi said that the international community should not look at Nepal from the Indian prism. The issue merits further deliberation.

Nepal is a geo-strategically important country. Not only because it is in the middle of two nuclear powers and shares border with two fastest growing economies in the world but also because Nepal serves as a buffer zone between China and India. Yet, India has much to share with Nepal. Our age-old traditional and cultural ties, about 80 percent of Indians being Hindu and sharing an open border, India has special attachment with the only Hindu kingdom of the world.

Professor Subedi rightly said that the international relation is a game of give and take. Diplomatic relations and trade promotions are two parts of a coin. In this game of give and take, India’s relations with Nepal would be on the basis of strategic determinants of Indian interests.

India has great stake in Nepal and has been monitoring political developments in Nepal closely. India has always maintained her relations with Nepal strategically but at the same time wants to impress the international community that she has always been supportive of pro-democratic causes of Nepal. Whether India would have supported pro-democratic movements in Nepal had the earlier governments bowed down to Indian demands is questionable.

The greatest threat India feels now is from the Maoists. India is disappointed that our successive democratic governments have failed to counter Maoist insurgency. This has followed significant growth of Maoist activities in India threatening her own internal security. India is further suspicious of anti-Indian activities in Nepal. India may not be trying to export democracy in Nepal but she wishes status-quo if not better “take than give” from Nepal which may be justifiable under the principle of international relation. India wants Nepal under its sphere of influence both politically and economically, as a secure buffer zone with China. India thinks it is justified to be involved in Nepal’s matters as she feels Nepal’s internal matter can affect hers.

Can international law govern the relation between India and Nepal? Yes, it can. However, it is not unusual for strong countries, to put in place and continually modify, elaborate rules and institutions to manage their relations in the way that best suit them. History is witness that stronger countries have a better say in international relations compared to their weaker counterparts. The SAARC has already failed in this respect and LDC issue has little to offer.

There is no harm for India accepting international mediation in Nepal to resolve the armed conflict in its neighbourhood. Are we taking every act of India suspiciously or is our southern neighbour unnecessarily interfering in our internal matters? Whatever the case may be, the Indo-Nepal Treaty of Transit being extended for only three months, India’s decision can have crucial effect. Now, we have come to a situation similar to that the late ‘80s when Indian embargo forced the then royal regime to collapse. Who knows, Nepal’s attempt to play ‘China Card’ and bringing Chinese arms might recently bring another collapse in similar fashion.

It is wrong for the international community in general to look at Nepal through Indian eyes. However, it has to be accepted that India, being a neighbour and a democratic country, is a better witness than China. What I think Professor Subedi missed is that there are always power games played in the business of give and take. India’s ability to convince the international community as a reliable witness should be accepted as her diplomatic success, however, what power games have been played underneath is an issue for further exploration.

India has reasons to appear as a pro-democratic country. One reason could be because some coalition partners of the Government of India are sympathetic towards the major political parties of Nepal. It could also be because India wishes to show that she is serious towards democratization and wants democracy flourish in the region. However, in the theory of give and take, these issues have little relevance. There must be some other issues, probably or most importantly to build up her image as a reliable member of the international community. May it be as a trading partner to attract foreign investments or in her bid to permanent seat in the Security Council, she has to prove that she is great, she is democratic. In the humble reciprocity, it is fair for the international community to tune in with India as long as they have common agenda. Any difference arising, the understanding will break.

International community must be aware of a comparable situation of the late ‘70s Iran. The contrast was that the international community had been supporting the regime when large majority of the people were against it. This resulted into a hostile diplomatic relation between say Iran and the US, which is yet to be repaired. The Prime Minister who was appointed by the King had to convince the Iranian King to flee.

Coming back to Indo-Nepal relations, India thinks she has done so much for Nepal. She ignores the facts what Nepal has done for her. Tens of thousands of Nepalis still serve in Indian Army fighting and dying for Indian cause. Such contributions are bluntly undermined if not ignored. Nepal’s zero tolerance policy against anti-Indian activities in Nepal, securing her northern border and being blatantly flexible in her treaties and agreements with India are some of the points that may be mentioned here. In return, Nepal has always been forced to accommodate to the power negotiations of India.

If India seriously wants to build up her image in the international community, she needs to start from the issue of Bhutanese refugees in Nepal. The treaty between Bhutan and India permits her to be involved in this issue and the international community knows it very well that Indian involvement can resolve this issue without further delay. India’s small contribution can fruit tremendous results. India needs to adopt flexible policy towards Nepal as India has nothing to lose from the success of Nepal but she may have to bear the burden if Nepal fails.

It must be appreciated that the international community and India are coming together to help Nepal. However, it would be premature to assume that the international community will continue following India in its policies towards Nepal. The business of “give and take” may apply to the relation between the international community, but, such business should not affect Nepali interests in any way.

(Devendra Shrestha has an LLM in Dispute Prevention and Resolution from the University of Westminster, London. Please send your comments to [email protected] or [email protected])

(Editor’s Note: Nepalis, wherever they live, as well as friends of Nepal around the globe are requested to contribute their views/opinions/recollections etc. on issues concerning present day Nepal to the Guest Column of Nepalnews. Length of the article should not be more than 1,000 words and may be edited for the purpose of clarity and space. Relevant photos as well as photo of the author may also be sent along with the article. Please send your write-ups to [email protected])