Time For Soul Searching

December 17, 2004
19 MIN READ
A
A+
A-

As India’s economy moves in a high growth trajectory with pundits predicting it is poised to become South Asian Tiger within a few years of time, Nepal – which is the closest neighbor of India – can expect to tap opportunities that lie next door. Nepal’s future depends upon how India will look upon Nepal’s aspirations. At a time when there are looming opportunities around, growing sense of distrust and mistrust continue to cast a long shadow on the bilateral relations. In this backdrop, King Gyanendra who heads Nepal’s oldest institution is paying his third formal visit to India from December 23. No two countries in the world have so many commonalities and common interests as between Nepal and India but their minds are preoccupied by distrust and mistrust. The time has come now to settle all outstanding issues at the political level through free and frank discussions on shortcomings and grievances. Nepal’s relation with India is equally sensitive as it has many dimensions and complications. How King Gyanendra will put forth his point of view and how Indian perceptions will pan out remains to be seen

By KESHAB POUDEL

“There are no dissensions and clashes of interests between patriotic Nepalis and patriotic Indians,” said first elected prime minister and Nepalese statesman B.P. Koirala, in his Atmabritanta, late life recollections. “There are no arenas where Nepalese and Indian national interests clash.”

B.P. Koirala made these remarks to Indian audience- clarifying Nepal’s position and stand- while addressing a public meeting in New Delhi four decades ago during his first official visit as a first elected prime minister of Nepal. At that time Indian officialdom and media were critical towards Congress government’s China policy. But late leader Koirala put his point of view arguing that Nepal and India share the interests and destiny.

This is still true. Nepal and India cannot have any major clashes of interests. Being a small country sandwiched between two major powers China in the north and India in the south, Nepal’s political leaders and policy makers cannot benefit by playing one against the other. In terms of geography, culture and religion, India is closer to Nepal. Democratic Nepal shares commonalities of interests with democratic India.

Then why do the bilateral relations pass through distrust and mistrust? It is merely a result of misunderstanding between Nepal and India as Indian policy makers fail to recognize Nepal’s geographical reality and forget to bear in mind that Nepal also has to respect the sensibilities of its northern neighbor China. This misconception triggers unintended problems.

Although the cross-border contacts and interactions along the over 1400 km long border in north are insignificant and infrequent, the country beyond the northern border is also powerful and sensitive. Even the powerful British-India respected Nepal’s status in its dealing with northern neighbor. Unlike other smaller Himalayan Kingdoms, Nepal occupies important place in China’s policy as well.

“In the event it brought about by the middle of the century the emergence of a Nepal which was really the model of what a buffer states, with Bhutan and Sikkim, were on a far smaller scale and, in both cases, resulted ultimately either in total British domination (Sikkim) or effective neutralization of Bhutan,” writes historian Alastair Lamb in his book India-Nepal-China. “British did not annex Nepalese territory in 1814 looking at the Chinese response.”

Differences Still Persists

More than four decades have already passed since B.P. Koirala expressed similar kind of statement but it seems that Nepal is still far from convincing Indian policy makers about this reality. The reactions coming from southern neighbor shows that mistrust and distrust continues to be dominant at policy level.

“We have to stop this blame game and sincerely work towards overcoming the differences and conflicts,” said a former foreign minister. “We must candidly discuss our grievances at the political level.”

Nepal’s bilateral relations with India are not only important but sensitive as well since there are thousands of interactions taking place at different levels and sectors between the two countries every day from religion to social and trade to others. India’s support and backing is crucial for the faster economic development of Nepal and its social stability. According to an unofficial estimate, every day tens of thousands of people cross border between the two countries.

Being a landlocked country and a close neighbor sharing similar views on many issues, Nepal has only one option – that is to strengthen its relations with India. What Nepal wants is the recognition of its sovereignty and independence.

Ups And Downs

Nepal-India relations have seen many ups and downs in the last four decades. It passed through four different political phases – multi-party democracy, one party Panchayat system, multi-party democracy and the direct rule of the King but in all those stages, misconceptions and distrusts prevailed between the two south Asian neighbors.

Since there are no dissensions and major conflict of interests, there are many hopeful signs to develop cordial relations and overcome distrusts and mistrusts. B.P. Koirala has illustrated what should be the real basis for bilateral relations between democratic India and democratic Nepal but the relations between the two friendly countries are yet to take that direction.

Following its Independence in 1947, India has fought four wars with its neighbors including three with Pakistan and one brief but major war with China. These wars seem to have dominated the Indian mindset when formulating policy towards neighbors including Nepal. Although Nepal, a small country, does not have anything to do with these wars and Nepal cannot even think of going against India any time, unfortunately, it seems to be suffering from India’s changing mindset. Nepal actually desires a treatment as a close friend with common interest rather than a state that harbors hostility.

In the last leg of his life, B.P. Koirala, a genuine friend of India, who was accused of being pro-Indian by some so-called nationalists in Nepal, was frustrated with the dealing of India with its small and helpless neighbor. “India does not have a heart of its size,” said B.P. Koirala expressing the agony of Nepal.

Frequent Contacts

In the economic and religious areas, Nepalese have larger contacts with India than rest of the countries of the world including China and Pakistan. Annually hundreds of thousands of Nepalese and Indians visit each others’ countries for pilgrimage and employment. Many Nepalese still prefer to go to India for employment. Nepal’s trade with India is increasing. Since the economic boom is coming across the border, Nepal’s business sectors will receive positive benefits.

If there are genuine grievances in Nepal against India, they need to be addressed and not taken as expressions of animosity. If India has similar kinds of grievances, Nepal must address them. “If countries across the Atlantic are so much in trust and cooperation, there is no sea and mountain to divide Nepal and India. It is only the attitude and the mindset of dominant power of South Asia,” said an analyst.

Every Nepali is happy to see the high economic growth in India as they know that the prosperous India is in their best interest. The economic prosperity in southern neighbor will have spill over effect in Nepal. India’s recent support to operate the dry port in Birgunj is a positive development. Similarly, the agreement to upgrade the custom facilities at border points is another milestone.

No patriotic Nepali can be found in the street criticizing India’s progress and prosperity. Business communities and rational Nepalese are hoping that tremendous economic possibilities in India and around India are going to benefit Nepal.

“We have many advantages over the Indian market. If India’s economy grows, we would receive enormous benefits,” said a businessman.

In the last four decades, political leaders of both the countries met number of times. In the last two years alone, King Gyanendra has already visited India twice and two prime ministers paid three visits to India. Former prime ministers, too, went to India. So far as India’s leaders are concerned, foreign minister K. Natwar Singh is the highest political figure to visit Nepal during this period. After the visit by I.K. Gujaral in 1997, no Indian prime minister has paid an official visit to Nepal. In 2001, Indian prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee came to Nepal only to take part in South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Summit.

Nepalese needs a strong bond of friendship with India. Nepalese leaders and intellectuals, despite many cynical criticisms back home, pay official visit to India.

India is Nepal’s largest foreign investor and it is also the largest trading partner. In terms of exports and imports, Nepal does more than 65 percent of formal trade with India. As there is an open border, the informal trade sector is said to be much higher. Nepal and India have been taking a number of initiatives to strengthen the business relations.

Nepal’s Geographical Position

Great King Prithivi Narayan Shah begins his chapter on foreign policy in Dibya Upadesh with the statement: “This country is like a gourd between two rocks. He shows his fundamental appreciation of the fact that a small nation such as Nepal, lying as it does between two great relatively powerful nations, has a very delicate position to maintain. The position of Nepal was, of course, rendered delicate, not by merely juxtaposition with such powerful neighbors,” writes L.F.Stiller, S.J. in his book Prithivi Narayan Shah in the light of Dibya Upadesh.

Although Nepal shares more than 1400 kilometers long border with China, Nepal’s trade with China is about Rs.10 billion – five time less than with India – and there is less than Rs 100 million annual trade with Pakistan with whom Nepal does not have any contiguous border.

“Nepal is a small country and its role is very nominal. Bigger the country, bigger the responsibilities are. Nepal does not have any objection on other bilateral adjustments except on its independence and sovereignty,” said a former Nepalese diplomat posted in New Delhi.

When rational Nepalis do not think of making any harsh comments on India, Nepalis are used to listening unrealistic comments from some Indian leaders. A former Indian prime minister – who is criticized in India as being too soft prime minister towards its neighbor – recently told a Nepali political activist that Nepal is a supplier of domestic servants to India. “It requires serious soul searching. After all why is there such a big gap from a leader of big democratic country with a small, poor and landlocked neighbor,” said an analyst.

British power respected Nepal’s geo-strategic complexity and accepted Nepal’s independence but democratic India seems unable to adjust with Nepal.

As many Nepalese and Indian scholars are talking about the need to strengthen the bilateral relations between the two countries, Koirala’s remarks made in 1960 are still relevant.

After B.P. Koirala, many Nepalese leaders including three Kings and more than two dozens of prime ministers have visited India. But there is no Nepalese leader who has spoken frankly and without hesitation about the common interest and destiny between the two countries.

India’s Interest

India has basically two interests in Nepal – security and water resource. It does not require much coercion to pursue Nepal to look after India’s interest. “If India understands the importance of prosperous and stable Nepal, India need not be such overbearing towards her interest. Nepal cannot survive by harboring hostility against its closest neighbor,” said an analyst.

“We are preoccupied in small specific issues without looking into the relationship in a comprehensive framework with emphasis on preserving self-respect and independence and promoting economic development,” said former foreign minister Dr. Ram Sharan Mahat.

Past experiences have shown that Nepal and India are often involved in disputes over small and specific areas. For instance, Nepal and India share more than 2,000 rivers and steams in the border but both countries raise only specific issues. There are similar disputes in sharing of water and power.

A patriotic Nepali always wants to see strong, stable, prosperous and powerful India. Similarly, patriotic Indians cannot think of creating troubles for Nepal. Nepal and India are geographically linked in such manners that any undesirable incident is going to have spillover implications in both the countries. As stable and powerful India protects and guarantees Nepal’s independence, Nepal’s prosperity and peace is complimentary to India.

“Nepali Congress would always value the concern and interest of its immediate neighbors,” said former prime minister and leader of Nepali Congress Girija Prasad Koirala reflecting the opinion shared by wide spectrum of Nepalese political establishment.

People to People Relations

People to people relations between the two countries are important as they share common culture, religion and have enjoyed good friendly relations for centuries. There was excellent relation till the life of B.P. Koirala at political as well as people to people level because there were many senior socialist leaders including Jaya Prakash Narayan, Ram Manohar Lohiya, and Chandra Shekhar who were leading India. Having long personal association with these Indian leader, B.P. Koirala could explain Nepal’s position to India’s people as well as political leaders.

Nepal and India have experienced settlement of all major and sensitive disputes whenever good relations exist at political and people to people level. Whether in case of Kosi, Gandaki or Mahakali – even though some may still have reservations – these disputes were settled through an understanding at political level.

Once political leaders sit together and discuss matters related to each other, they can understand difficulties and constraints. Unfortunately, India’s politicians, who are very busy with their internal problems, rely on bureaucrats. Nepal policy is often prepared at the bureaucratic and security level – with fear/security perceptions dominating the whole sphere.

“The personal rapport established by the Nepali and Indian prime ministers had helped to remove misunderstanding between the two countries in the past. The frank speeches made by late Manmohan Adhikary, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, G.P. Koirala and Sher Bahadur Deuba as prime ministers were well received by Indian politicians, media and public. Although an excessive use of personal diplomacy might have by-passed the proper channel (foreign ministry, etc) personal contact, reinforced by ideological identity, was used as an instrument to improve bilateral relations. Democracy in India and Nepal have shown their affinity, but democratic openness and interactions at various levels have not yet been able to remove the cobwebs of mutual suspicion and distrust,” writes Professor Lok Raj Baral in his article Democracy and Indo-Nepal Relations.

During the time of British-India, relations with Nepal was of very little concern as Tibet was under an autonomy and water resource was not that important issue at all. Thanks to the growing population and demand for water for irrigation and power and owing to the issues of flood, water resource has become the number one significance now. Following the change of status of Tibet after 1949, Indian security interest also changed vis-à-vis Nepal.

Despite all these major changes with increasing complexities, Nepal and India require frequent political level meetings. However, such important issues are actually left at the bureaucratic and security level. Very little efforts were made to build the relationship at the political level.

Bureaucratic Mindset

Unfortunately, of late the friendly relations between the two countries are being ignored at the political level. It is the bureaucrats of both the countries who are now shaping the state-to-state relations between Nepal and India – which are beyond the comprehension of bureaucrats. According to Max Waber, a German sociologist, bureaucrat is an official who works by fixed routine exercising intelligent judgment.

Over the last four decades, bureaucrats of both the countries failed to build friendly relations benefiting both the countries. Instead of harmony, sense of mistrust and distrust dominate relations between the two closest friends of South Asia.

This is not to blame any particular individual but bureaucracy has certain universal nature. One of the universal of natures of bureaucracy is that it is the relations based on hierarchy or superior/inferior. The tendency in bureaucracy is that superior always prevails over inferior. In its geographical and economic size, naturally India is a superior country compared to smaller neighbor Nepal. Though Nepal’s bureaucracy is weaker, it also follows the same hierarchical system.

“Compared to the bureaucrats, politicians better understand each other’s problems and constraints since they have brain, heart and mind. The bureaucrats have only pain and brain where as the security officials have gun, muscle and brain. Both of them have no heart at all. As long as strong understanding at political level is not developed, it is very difficult to wipe out the distrust and mistrust in the relations,” said an analyst.

Nepal’s Compulsions

Nepal does not have any other option than to strengthen the already existing good and friendly relationship with India. No patriotic Nepalese sees weaker India to be in their interest.

From employment to other opportunities like education, overwhelming Nepalese see India as the best destination. This is not true for the Indians. For residents of Nepal’s adjoining Indian states of Bihar and UP, Nepal is not the only place for them. They can go to Chennai, Mumbai, Kolkata or any other cities instead of coming to Nepal.

Despite their commonalities in culture and religion, an Indian citizen does not need to read about Nepal whereas Nepalese have to read everything about India. Average Indian citizens are not aware about the state of Nepal and name of political leaders here but almost all Nepalese have fairly wide knowledge about Indian politics, India’s economy and political leaders and their personality.

“The difficulties and challenges of our relationship belong to neighborliness of the friendly category. India looks Nepal as a friend,” said M. Rasgotra, former Indian foreign secretary. “In my long career in diplomacy I had many opportunities to deal with Nepal and with a variety of problems in Indo-Nepal relations. We had our moments of discouragement, irritation and anger, agony and anguish – but my affection for Nepal and for the people of Nepal have kept growing with every encounter.”

Forgetting Neighbor

Political leaders of Nepal’s neighboring Indian states remember Nepal only at the time of flood and onset of monsoon. With the onset of monsoon and devastating floods in the plains, Indian political leaders remember Nepal – and that, too, for wrong reasons. Most of the time they accuse Nepal of releasing additional waters without knowing that Nepal does not have any reservoir or dam. “It is unfortunate that we cannot inform our neighbors about Nepal’s real position,” said a water resource expert.

As Nepal’s political significance is negligible in the India’s internal politics, politicians do not bother to think about Nepal as most of the time they are busy in settling domestic problems. Interestingly, former chief minister of Bihar and present Union Railways Minister Laloo Prasad Yadav is yet to visit Nepal. Similarly, the chief ministers of other bordering states, too, have not visited Nepal.

Having grown up in a prosperous and affluent society, most of new generation Indians do not know the reality of Nepal. As Indian media often produce distorted version of news and as Nepal lack any effective media to reach out to them, they grow up in either total indifference or misplaced opinions towards Nepal.

In real term, Nepal is not in a position to undermine India and friendship with it. But when Nepal’s close friend ignores and undermines its need and problems, third party will definitely crop up. If India pays serious and genuine attention to the problems of Nepal and addresses its concern, Nepalese will not bother to look elsewhere.

Indian officials often accused Nepal of giving shelter to anti-Indian elements from foreign countries like Pakistan. They often overlook the simple fact that Nepal does not gain anything by harboring anti-India elements.

Nepalese officials, too, feel that India has not done much to prevent the crossing of insurgents from border and hold the view that Nepal cannot resolve the violent Maoist insurgency in its soil without the whole-hearted support of India.

“The Indo-Nepal relations over the years have structured a framework of cooperation in the regional sphere as well as in the security sphere. The social dimension probably is left for the people-to-people interactions,” said Dr. Bhekh B. Thapa, former foreign minister and former Royal Nepalese ambassador to India in an interaction program.

King Gyanendra, who is heading an institution vital to stability of Nepal, is visiting India at a time when there is no elected parliament. At present, he is the legitimate political will of Nepal. In his one-on-one talk with Indian leaders, King Gyanendra must assure Indian political leaders that Nepal cannot condone any hostile activity against Indian security interest and should speak openly about Nepal’s problems. King Gyanendra must try to sort out misconception and distrust about Nepal in India. “Only a friend can say spade is a spade,” said an analyst.

It is not that two countries with similar destiny, common interests and similar objectives for future should not have any difference. Thanks to the misunderstanding in realizing the friendly relationship, the cases of mistrust and distrust appear but friendly countries have their own way of overcoming it.

As a good friend and neighbor, Nepalese leaders must clearly put their problems and constraints before the Indian political leaders and Indian people. There are certain persons in both the sides who always write and express cynical and critical views.

As described by Charles Dickens in his novel Tale of Two Cities – it is the best of the time and worst of the time. It is best since India’s economy is moving towards faster growth creating more opportunities for Nepal. It is the worst time since Nepal is facing one of the gravest period in its history as it is facing violent Maoist insurgency.

If India really supports Nepal, her small neighbor can turn into peaceful, stable and prosperous country. If she undermines it, the Kingdom will turn into a destructive, chaotic and unstable state – which can, in no way, be in the interest of India, in particular, and the whole region, in general.