Time to Reassess Indo-Nepal Relations
10 Sep, 2009 · 2965
Padmaja Murthy evaluates the visit of the Prime Minister of Nepal to India
The Prime Minister of Nepal came on a five day goodwill visit to India from August 18-22. The visit was preceded by two other important visits from Nepal – that of Defense Minister Bidhya Bhandari and Foreign Minister Sujatha Koirala. All these were aimed at renewing the bilateral relations with a new thrust that seemed to have been disturbed under the Maoist-led government with its perceived tilt towards China. However, these visits had limited success as they were conducted in the background of increasing trust deficit among the political parties in Nepal, especially the 22 party coalition government led by Madhav Kumar Nepal and the UCPN (Maoists) who are now in the opposition. The instability within Nepal undermines the special relationship the two countries share. This difficult phase in bilateral relations will continue unless India reassesses its approach towards Nepal. India needs to identify areas and mechanisms of cooperation which not only have the approval and consensus of all the parties in Nepal but also bring out the unique relations the two countries share.
Before Nepal’s PM embarked on his visit to India, the UCPN (Maoists) advised him not to sign any big agreement with India that required a broader consensus at home or has a far reaching effect on India-Nepal ties. The Maoists were bitter towards India for its stand in the ‘civilian supremacy’ issue. Prime Minister asked them not to be suspicious of his India tour. He stated that there will not be any agreement on issues like water resources or arms deal that have a long term impact without the consensus of major political parties.
One of the reasons for this atmosphere of mistrust was the controversy which arose following the Defense Minister’s visit in July. The Maoists doubted that the visit was to sign an arms deal with India. A statement from Nepal’s Prime Minister clarifying that no agreement with India had been reached for the purchase of arms resolved the issue. He clarified that his government was committed to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement which bars any arms purchase until the peace process ends. There is no doubt that India was keen to renew the defense relations which were suspended following the monarchy’s takeover before Jana Andolan II. However, recent events clearly indicate that this important pillar of the bilateral relationship can be renewed only after the peace process reaches a meaningful conclusion.
Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal’s visit was a clear indication that in the absence political consensus back home, his hands were tied. His visit was marked by caution and no major agreement was concluded, apart from the renewal of the trade treaty which was also not problem-free. The peace process and the difficulties being faced were obviously discussed and India expressed its support for stability in Nepal. India committed to providing an aid package of about US$ 400 million for the economic development of Nepal; reiterated the resolve to implement bilateral projects in Nepal which had already been agreed upon; discussed issues relating to tourism and energy transmission, India’s concerns regarding fake Indian currency entering India through Nepal, the country being used for terrorist activities directed at India, and the use of Madrasas for anti-India activities. The Prime Minister of Nepal assured of India assistance in these matters and called for Indian investment in infrastructure, hydro-power, tourism, agro-processing and financial services. Referring to China, he said that Nepal would not use the China-card against India and that Nepal understood India’s security concerns.
India needs a reality check on its relations with Nepal, with whom its security is closely linked. Events post Jana Andolan II and the Constituent Assembly elections which saw the Maoists emerging as the largest party have markedly changed the political scenario in Nepal and this has had its impact on Indo-Nepal relations too. Maoists too face a contradiction - though they speak of equidistance with regard to China and India in policy, they hesitatingly accept that in reality it is not so. Of the forty demands which the Maoists put forward during the insurgency days, some are directly or indirectly related to grievances with India. Having come out into the political mainstream, hardliners within the Maoist party will demand an implementation of these anti-India views.
India needs to accept that there are now new important players in Nepal who have the legitimacy and the approval of the people at large. These players look at interdependence and bilateral relations in a different paradigm which need not necessarily be anti-India. Channels of communication with all these political parties need to be cultivated for their views will define the Nepal in the future. India needs to understand the wishes of the people of Nepal and not the so-called leaders and tailor its policy accordingly.
The dilemma which India faces is that, those with whom it has good equations have failed to perform well during the elections. With those that have done well in the elections in Nepal, India has a trust deficit. India needs to resolve this dilemma and move ahead.
Before Nepal’s PM embarked on his visit to India, the UCPN (Maoists) advised him not to sign any big agreement with India that required a broader consensus at home or has a far reaching effect on India-Nepal ties. The Maoists were bitter towards India for its stand in the ‘civilian supremacy’ issue. Prime Minister asked them not to be suspicious of his India tour. He stated that there will not be any agreement on issues like water resources or arms deal that have a long term impact without the consensus of major political parties.
One of the reasons for this atmosphere of mistrust was the controversy which arose following the Defense Minister’s visit in July. The Maoists doubted that the visit was to sign an arms deal with India. A statement from Nepal’s Prime Minister clarifying that no agreement with India had been reached for the purchase of arms resolved the issue. He clarified that his government was committed to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement which bars any arms purchase until the peace process ends. There is no doubt that India was keen to renew the defense relations which were suspended following the monarchy’s takeover before Jana Andolan II. However, recent events clearly indicate that this important pillar of the bilateral relationship can be renewed only after the peace process reaches a meaningful conclusion.
Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal’s visit was a clear indication that in the absence political consensus back home, his hands were tied. His visit was marked by caution and no major agreement was concluded, apart from the renewal of the trade treaty which was also not problem-free. The peace process and the difficulties being faced were obviously discussed and India expressed its support for stability in Nepal. India committed to providing an aid package of about US$ 400 million for the economic development of Nepal; reiterated the resolve to implement bilateral projects in Nepal which had already been agreed upon; discussed issues relating to tourism and energy transmission, India’s concerns regarding fake Indian currency entering India through Nepal, the country being used for terrorist activities directed at India, and the use of Madrasas for anti-India activities. The Prime Minister of Nepal assured of India assistance in these matters and called for Indian investment in infrastructure, hydro-power, tourism, agro-processing and financial services. Referring to China, he said that Nepal would not use the China-card against India and that Nepal understood India’s security concerns.
India needs a reality check on its relations with Nepal, with whom its security is closely linked. Events post Jana Andolan II and the Constituent Assembly elections which saw the Maoists emerging as the largest party have markedly changed the political scenario in Nepal and this has had its impact on Indo-Nepal relations too. Maoists too face a contradiction - though they speak of equidistance with regard to China and India in policy, they hesitatingly accept that in reality it is not so. Of the forty demands which the Maoists put forward during the insurgency days, some are directly or indirectly related to grievances with India. Having come out into the political mainstream, hardliners within the Maoist party will demand an implementation of these anti-India views.
India needs to accept that there are now new important players in Nepal who have the legitimacy and the approval of the people at large. These players look at interdependence and bilateral relations in a different paradigm which need not necessarily be anti-India. Channels of communication with all these political parties need to be cultivated for their views will define the Nepal in the future. India needs to understand the wishes of the people of Nepal and not the so-called leaders and tailor its policy accordingly.
The dilemma which India faces is that, those with whom it has good equations have failed to perform well during the elections. With those that have done well in the elections in Nepal, India has a trust deficit. India needs to resolve this dilemma and move ahead.
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
