Narendra Modi, with unparalleled authority over his party that enjoys a comfortable majority in the Indian parliament and his focus on ‘neighbourhood policy’, could have been a visionary and different kind of prime minister for India’s neighbours, the way IK Gujral once was  despite his short tenure in office. Delhi’s metaphoric ‘permanent establishment’—the nexus of some politicians, external and internal intelligence agencies and bureaucracy, in particular the Ministry of External Affairs—was unhappy with Gujral’s principle of ‘give more, take less’ while dealing with smaller and weaker neighbours. The nexus was not comfortable with Modi’s ‘neighbour first and foremost’ declaration either. Components of the nexus feared that such a policy may bring to an end the respective clout it had been enjoying in Kathmandu and other neighbouring capitals. At the other end in Kathmandu, their agents in political, bureaucratic and media circles and academic and civil society groups also were apprehensive that their Delhi contacts, network and benefits may come to an end with Modi’s new neighbourhood policy. 

Hence, Delhi’s crafty and powerful lobby so manipulated Modi that just one year after he received warm applauses both from the streets and the floors of parliament when he visited Kathmandu, he decided to blockade Nepal. He did so to punish Nepal for writing its constitution on its own, ignoring Delhi’s dictation. The nexus also succeeded in misguiding Modi that Nepal’s Madhesi parties’ divisive agendas, especially with regard to the federal demarcation, converged with ‘Delhi’s long-term interests and ambitions’. Here we will discuss why, in the best interests of both nations, Modi should not be carried away by the nexus and their parochial interests. 

Indian interests

Delhi wants to take Nepal under its ‘security umbrella’, also because it believes that as a weak state having a long, open and porous border with India, Nepal has become a transit route for security threats to her. Fine; but has Kathmandu not always promptly taken care of Delhi’s security interests—all and sundry, legitimate or otherwise? For example, even without an extradition treaty, has Kathmandu not quietly handed over ‘India’s public enemies’ who are nabbed in Nepal (which, to maintain secrecy and to avoid embarrassment, Indian Police pretend to have arrested in one of the bordering Indian towns)? Have Nepali officials not been turning a blind eye to killings or attempted killings of such ‘enemies’ in Nepali soil, apparently carried out by RAW, albeit covertly. 

Nepal’s water resources are another legitimate interest of India, which as a lower riparian country sometimes suffers from flooded rivers flowing from Nepal during monsoon. Allegedly because of ‘too much politicisation of it within Nepal’ the cooperation leading to mutual benefit in this field has been slow and miserably inadequate, but even for this India is to be blamed. From the days of Koshi and Gandaki projects in the 1950s and 60s to Mahakali project in the 1990s, Delhi has failed, either deliberately or carelessly, to honour most of its commitments that would benefit Nepal. India, which controls those joint projects, should therefore create an environment of trust if it is to launch fresh joint river projects, especially within the Nepali territory.

India has been recruiting Nepali youths, known as Gorkhas, into her army. Nepal has been providing all facilities to recruit them, to distribute pensions and other benefits to the retired ones and to conduct welfare schemes for their families. Kathmandu has also allowed the Indian embassy to distribute aid, build hospitals, schools, libraries and so on for local people. The special favour, which no other embassy enjoys, has been granted keeping in view the unique relationship between the two countries. 

So on and so forth, Nepal has zealously taken care of India’s interests and wishes even if some of them were never merited. Not only landlocked, virtually an India-locked country which is dependent on the former for passage to the international waters and supplies of most essential items, Nepal’s rulers, whether good or bad, have always been obliging when it comes to India. However, that does not mean that Nepal will or should accept servitude in the name of geopolitical realities or compulsions. Always an independent, sovereign and proud nation, she wants to write her constitution, to decide what is best for any of her people that include Madhesis, and to manage her affairs on her own without any foreign interference. Is that too much to wish or ask for, Mr. Modi? 

The way forward

Instead of complaining about the wave of anti-Indian sentiments that has swept Nepal, especially among the ‘hill communities’, in recent times, Delhi should do honest introspection. Current anti-India sentiments are the most direct results of Delhi’s hegemonic or interventionist policies, political game of ‘Madhesi versus hill people’ and embargo. Rest assured Mr. Modi, the wave is not permanent; scars may remain for a long time but the wounds will go once you correct course. Anyway, the wave is natural and spontaneous; after all, you should not expect a thank you note with a bouquet of flowers in return when you blockade a friendly neighbour. 

As far as the issue of the Tarai or Madhesi people are concerned, they have been mostly addressed, especially since last decade. India need not be a patron saint of Madhesi communities; Kathmandu is ready to discuss, and address wherever possible, any of Madhesis’ further demands or grievances except that of secession, the veiled threats of which are often visible during agitations and discourses. So, Mr. Modi, unless your goal is to disintegrate Tarai from Nepal to eventually annex the region into India, it will be foolish to back or stir agitations there, to meddle in Nepal’s internal affairs, to dictate how to write her constitution, or go one step further and micromanage the country. 

See what China does. Nepali people never fear China, another giant neighbour, which is bigger and more powerful than India. Why? Simply because she never interferes in Nepal’s internal affairs. So, when China with her non-interventionist and hands-off policy receives every cooperation she needs from Kathmandu (such as the crackdown on ‘Free Tibet’ movements within Nepal) and of course, great admiration of Nepali people, why cannot Delhi do the same and be happy? Will you ponder please, Mr. Modi?

The author can be contacted at [email protected]