On December 7, there was uproar in the Upper House of Indian Parliament after few parliamentarians criticised the Modi government for imposing a blockade on Nepal. Indian Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj defended her government by saying India has always treated Nepal as an ‘elder brother’ and not a ‘big brother’. Last year, while returning to Delhi after attending the Saarc Coordination meeting in Kathmandu, Swaraj had told the press at the Tribhuban International Airport (TIA) that ‘India will have elder brotherly and not big brotherly relationship with her neighbours’. The current Indian ambassador to Nepal Ranjit Rae might have advised her make such a statement.

Last year in June, Professor Lokraj Baral had presented his findings on a study on ‘India-Nepal Open Border’at a hotel in Kathmandu. During the floor discussion, the first person to speak was a parliamentarian who said that it had never occurred to him that a border exists between Nepal and India. Another person suggested that an amicable solution to the existing big and small irritants between India and Nepal, which sometime get flared up as anti-India protest would be to change India’s big brotherly attitude towards its neighbours to elder brotherly attititue. Incidentally, it was this scribe who made that point and Ambassador Rae, the chief guest of that session, had been observed noting it. Now, we can take satifaction in the fact that a sentiment expressed by a Nepali has now been reiterated by the Indian

establishment.

This could also be an opportune time to resolve the long outstanding issues

between India and Nepal. For the greater interest of both the nations, Nepal should talk to India and boldly present its stand on two issues: using and sharing the fresh water that flows from Nepal to India; and India’s security-related concerns with regards to activities in Nepali soil.

Water concern

Nepal should be able to assure India of its role in hydropower projects in the country, while ensuring that it also benefits from it based on international law and appraisal

conducted by experts. After agreeing on the conditions of benefit sharing, India and Nepal could even sign a treaty on hydropower development.

This way, India would utilise fresh water both for drinking and irrigation purposes besides flood control and hydropower generation.  Nepal could make its people prosperous and happy from the benefits it receives from it. Bhutan, for instance, has made tremendous gains through Indian investment in its hydropower sector. While presenting a strategic prospective proposal and striking deal with India, the incumbent government no doubt will face a great resistance and criticism. But, the government must resist all such pressures as they will fizzle out when the impact of the deal becomes visible in terms of increased prosperity of the people.

Such strategic dealings will strengthen Nepal-India relationship and preempt many unwarranted issues. It could even put an end to racial, ethnic and sectarian movement including the secessionist movement. It might even stop unwarranted political uprising and strikes. The country could then begin a new phase where leaders no longer sell Nepal’s water resources by signing anti-nationalist treaties. For that, India has to overcome its coercive tactics of wearing Nepal down for achieving or imposing its interest. First, Track II diplomacy initiatives are necessary to pave the path for greater engagement. Then, Track I diplomacy can create an environment for signing amicable strategic agreements or treaties to serve the interests of both the countries.

Security concern

Currently, India’s biggest concern is the security threats it faces due to the open border it shares with Nepal and the prolonged transition in Nepal. Therefore, security along the Nepal-India border has become a common concern of both the countries. In this ever changing security environment, the best survival strategy for the country would be to develop a potent deterrence capability reliable enough to assure both of its neighbours that they face no security threat from Nepal. This is very much possible with appropriate assistance and cooperative engagement with our neighbours.

In that regards, the Nepal Army is highly capable. And though the time-tested Nepal Police and National Investigation Department have been disturbed by political intervention, they have managed to maintain their capability and potential to deliver results. The Armed Police Force (AFP), as a relatively new organisation, has been overstretched. Hence, the AFP should be developed as a specialised and potent paramilitary force with clearly defined roles.

The most important issue to be addressed would be turning the current open border between India and Nepal into a regulated border system through pragmatic plans. This is possible through serious consultations and joint efforts between Nepal and India. Once we become successful in our endeavours, both India and Nepal will see much better and prosperous days in near future. Only then will India’s present rhetoric of being ‘elder brother and not big brother’ come true.

Bhandari is a retired Brig Gen of Nepal Army and secretary of the Institute for Strategic Studies