Nepal is going through a complex socio-economic and political phase. On the socio-economic front, people want a better life and equality of opportunities regardless of gender, caste, creed or geographic regions. Politically, Nepalis want a more decentralised, people oriented  state. But in a globalised world, the ongoing changes in Nepal also affect others beyond its borders. In turn, Nepal is also affected by the concerns and actions of the international community. Unfortunately, as a small and poor nation with unduly greedy, largely visionless and factitious political leadership the interferences Nepal faces from its neighbourhood is proportionately high.

Political realities

After a complicated and extended political process that lasted for seven years, Nepal finally got a new and largely progressive constitution. The nation is currently in the process of institutionalising a federal, democratic, secular and republican state through its implementation. But it faces serious challenges mainly due to five reasons.

First, adequate consensus is yet to develop in three key aspects—federalism, secularism and republicanism—of the constitution. And leaders are yet to adopt a meaningful consensual political approach necessary for the effective implementation of the statute. Our political leaders have defined and practiced consensus by bringing in a bunch of parties together to form the government and pushing for certain agendas so that ministerial and other political and administrative spoils can be shared until it is displaced by another formation. What the parties are currently doing in the name of consensus is pursuing their vested interests. Rather, a true national consensus must be based on sound strategies and policies for the implementation of the new constitution and on issues of vital national interests such

as foreign affairs, water resources and national security.

Second, though the constitution was passed by an overwhelming majority of an inclusive Constituent Assembly, inputs from the majority of representatives were regrettably inadequate. The time given to the people for feedback was terribly short and even when they did offer inputs on key issues, they were ignored. It has, thus, resulted in a deep misunderstanding and dissatisfaction among some sections of population on vital issues such as citizenship, federalism, secularism and republicanism. Lack of adequate consultation and poor communication with people, particularly those living in the Tarai, and among skeptics of federalism and secularism, is likely to be a major constraint in the smooth implementation of the

new constitution. However, one important safeguard is that the constitution can be amended easily.

Third, our top leaders’ undue dependence on regional and international players for personal or party interests on various occassions and inadequate communication at critical moments has resulted in an acute ‘trust deficit’. The ongoing Indian ‘unofficial’ blockade could be an outcome of this. Fourth, it is appreciable that a new government is in place and that it took gender and ethnic considerations in electing Nepal’s new President, Speaker, Vice President and Deputy Speaker. However, questions remain about their efficacy. Were the officials elected on the basis of political ‘bhagbanda’ among the most competent people in Nepal? Will the current government of parties with opposing ideologies and interests last long enough?

Fifth, new agitations are likely to crop up in the future. The ongoing Tarai agitation with internal and external dimensions to it is very complex. Other disgruntled elements in the Tarai, including those that are more socially and politically marginalised, are not yet part of the agitation. Consequently, the problems in the Tarai demand a more holistic approach along with internal and external consultation and consensus rather than a quick signing of agreements only with the agitating groups.

Diplomatic woes

The external affairs of any country are largely an extension of its domestic affairs. India’s irritation expressed through the ‘unofficial blockade’ and China’s more sympathetic gesture both call for a wise diplomatic adjustment on part of Nepal. Obviously, Indo-Nepal relations are too important to allow the stalemate to continue any longer. Also, China is a good neighbour and a fast growing global power with a lot of cash at its disposal. While India and China are rivals when it comes to expanding their political and military influence, they are partners in their bid to enhance mutual trade and investment to contain other global and regional powers. In this situation, three points need to be considered to strengthen Nepal’s relations with them.

First, Nepal should not fail in building minimum national consensus on vital national agendas such as foreign affairs, water resources and security. After that, whosoever heads the government, now and in the future, must stick to the consensus with minimum tinkering. The Parliament and Supreme Court must oversee their adherence to it closely.

Second, the scarcity of petroleum products and essential supplies is largely due to Indian pressure tactics and less due to the agitation in the Tarai. Undeniably, our leaders’ inability to timely deal with Tarai discontent is at the root of the ‘blockade’. South Block’s latest press release and the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s telephonic advice to Prime Minister Oli to credibly resolve the “causes underlying the situation” after the passage of hundreds of stranded Indian truckers and firing in Birgunj-Raxual area, however, indicates  that India is unlikely to lift the blockade anytime soon.

Rethinking moves

Clearly, the solution lies in finding alternatives. Gradually expanding trade and transit routes with China could be an option. Upgrading roads in the north and regularising trade, including petroleum products, through the existing Keirong and Khasa as well as Korala, Olangchunggola, Phalante, Kimanthaka, Hilsa, Tinkarpas border points with China must be pursued seriously. However, it will be unrealistic to expect a massive and profitable all weather trade in many items in large quantities through these outlets given the hazardous mountainous terrain. Therefore, maintaining good relations with India is crucial for bilateral and third country trade.

Third, India and China must be assured that Nepal will protect their genuine interests. Both Nepal and India have used the ‘China card’ by design or default. Both the Indian media and establishment have over-alerted their citizens on Nepal’s relations with China while the Nepali media and political establishment have, at times, fueled anti-India sentiments.

Against this backdrop, Nepal must pursue a ‘Pro-Nepal’ policy consistently by placing due emphasis on India and China relations in proportion to their significance to its national interests. It would also do well for the Modi government to take a more pragmatic approach such as the one it pursued in the immediate aftermath of the destructive April earthquake in Nepal. Only then can the two nations share a mutually beneficial realtionship now and in the future.

Pudasaini is former UNFPA Representative in Sri Lanka and Yemen and former UNFPA Country Director in the Maldives