Interviews
We should focus on implementing past agreements with India
After assuming office in October last year, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli is set to leave for his first India visit later this week.After assuming office in October last year, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli is set to leave for his first India visit later this week. The visit comes after a four-month long strained ties between the two countries. Anil Giri and Shashwat Acharya spoke to Nishchal Nath Pandey on the strained Nepal-India ties, the upcoming visit, Indian interests in Nepal and the 1950 India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship. Pandey, currently the Director of the Centre for South Asian Studies, has authored several books on Nepal-India ties, South Asian regionalism and Saarc.
How do you assess the current status of Nepal-India relations?
The history of Nepal-India relations is a history of missed opportunities. Both the sides have failed to erect a solid foundation for economic partnership. The Oli-led government inherited strained Nepal-India relations. Now, there is a need to give the relations an economic orientation.
How did we miss the opportunities?
Lack of communication between the countries is one of the main reasons behind it. In Europe it is a routine practice for leaders of different countries to have breakfast or lunch meetings. We have never had this system in South Asia. We only have big state visits, which take time to organise. Indian Prime Minister Modi, however, has started to give attention to this fact by having his breakfast in Kabul, lunch in Lahore and dinner in Delhi. We should also focus on building good personal rapport among leaders of South Asia.
Currently, there is a powerful government with a solid majority and a strong prime minister in India. Even in Nepal the present government is strong given its numerical strength in Parliament. Thus, the time is ideal for both the countries to go for major agreements.
So how do we take Nepal-India relations forward?
We have politicised Nepal-India relations to such an extent that the psychology of Nepali political leaders has been to seek Indian political favours to remain in power. And Delhi has often got entangled in its own web of backing one faction over another in Nepali politics. So the problem is on both sides and bilateral relations have suffered as a result.
Nepal and India have signed many agreements in the past; but the implementation of them is either slow or lacking. Every time a Nepali prime minister visits India, there is a controversy, usually about a sell-out on certain projects. The Mahakali treaty and the Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (Bippa) are cases in point. Such history should not be repeated and focus now should be giving our relationship an economic orientation.
Should PM Oli focus his forthcoming visit to Delhi on reorienting our relationship or on mending strained political ties?
The first priority should be on mending our ties with India, which have suffered due to the recent blockade. Moreover, it is now necessary to reassess the relationship. The older generation of Nepali leaders studied in places like Benaras. They participated in the Indian freedom movements and were therefore emotional about Gandhi and Nehru, and Nepal-India relations.
But younger generation of Nepalis are returning home after studying in the West. They are less emotional about India. They are more pragmatic in their approach and are more interested in bilateral economic relations. It is important to recognise this change.
What should the Nepali delegation prioritise?
The unique relationship that the two countries share is based on the open border. So the Nepali delegation should explore ways to develop and enhance border infrastructures and connectivity.
Nepal’s immediate bordering areas are the Indian states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, which are some of the most backward and poverty-stricken areas of India. According to the Asian Development Bank, a total of 25.2 percent of Nepalis live below the poverty line whereas in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, people living below the poverty line are 29.4 percent 33.7 percent respectively. I was happy that the present Oli government initiated border development programmes. We are a small boat and when two big ships pass by, the rising tide will lift the small boat as well. That is how we should think of Nepal-India as well as Nepal-China relations.
Therefore, instead of making a long list of new demands, I think the Nepali delegation should focus on the implementation of the past agreements. We have agreed on sub-regional cooperation in South Asia such as the BBIN (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal) Agreement. We have spoken about border connectivity and several other things. Let us go for the implementation of the agreements already reached in the past.
Why has implementation been a problem?
We have failed in our lobbying, particularly in the peripheral states. We have never evaluated our relations with our neighbouring states. Currently, the BJP rules the centre but there are opposition parties ruling all our bordering states—Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal and Sikkim. These are the most important states for us and we have to start building stronger relations with them. Our lobbying efforts should be focused in Lucknow, Patna and Kolkata.
There are many bodies inside India—Prime Minister’s Office, Ministry of External Affairs, the security establishment, chambers of commerce, think-tanks, media, academic and religious institutions—that influence India’s Nepal policy. For the first time, by interacting with Shri Shri Ravi Shankar, Nepal’s foreign minister has tried to use influential Indians for our benefit. We ought to institutionalise such endeavours.
Nepal-India relations have reached an all time low due to the recent Indian blockade. What do you think were the reasons behind the blockade?
The blockade was partly a result of our inability to impress upon the Indian establishment that a sovereign Constituent Assembly promulgated our constitution and that it is inclusive. And it was also the result of India’s inability to have a coherent policy towards Nepal. The blockade serves as the latest example of Nepal-India relations being a history of misperceptions and failed judgments.
The way our government has started to reach out to the Madhesi parties and mend ties with them before PM Oli’s visit is a step in the right direction.
To what extent has the blockade served Indian interests in Nepal? What are those interests?
India’s security establishment has always thought that the most important element in Nepal-India relations is security. But it is high time we moulded the relationship into economically fruitful projects that are beneficial to both the countries.
China now plays an important role in South Asia and is not a “card” to be used against India. The largest number of travellers visiting Maldives is the Chinese. One of the biggest investments in Bangladesh is by the Chinese. They are already the second largest group of tourists in Nepal. This happened because they gave an economic orientation to their policy towards South Asian countries. Indians should realise that in order to play a leading political and economic role in the international arena, they have to take the whole region along in their path to economic development. How can you become a global player with islands of poverty all around you? The border areas with all of India’s neighbouring countries are islands of abject poverty. India needs to think of the whole region as a single economic and geo-political entity.
What are your thoughts on the 1950 Treaty?
I am in fact a great supporter of the 1950 treaty, which was signed even before the European Union came into being. The treaty envisaged an open border between India and Nepal, and the rights for Nepalis to live, work and own property in India. It was in some small measure a union already visualised in South Asia. Of course there are a lot of problems now, and there are talks of regulating the border. When we talk about abrogating or amending the treaty, we must look at its positive features.
The 1949 Treaty between India and Bhutan was actually changed in 2008. Now Bhutan’s defence and foreign relations are not looked after by India. So while it is possible for the 1950 Treaty to be revised, we must ensure that the positive features of the treaty are not negated in the new treaty.
What issues do need to be revisited in the treaty?
I do not think this is the right time to explore a new architecture for cooperation between Nepal and India. It is not wise to change your roof when it is raining. We have to make sure there is political stability here, that democratic institutions are fully functional, that our institutional mechanisms are in place, and that the grievances of certain sections of our population are addressed. Then we can think of the mechanisms and agreements that need to be amended. The language of certain articles of the treaty does show that India wants to keep Nepal under its security umbrella. This concern needs to be addressed.
What is your take on the formation of the Eminent Persons Group created to reassess the entire gamut of Nepal-India relations?
I think it is a step in the right direction. However, it would only be fully functional once the Indian side also appoints its EPG members.
How optimistic are you about a better Nepal-India relationship?
I am optimistic because there is a new generation of thinkers, academics, think tanks, businesspersons, media workers and policy makers in both the countries. There is now the view in India that in order for it to be an economic powerhouse, it has to take its smaller neighbours along. The new generation in Nepal also do not have the hangovers of the past. So this is the right time, as I said earlier, to implement major decisions. If not now, then when?