India’s former ambassador to Nepal and Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran’s article titled ‘Kathmandu’s triumphalism about China is misplaced’ appeared in the op-ed pages of the Hindustan Times on March 31. The write-up, which covered issues like the Madhes agitation, Nepal’s ties with China and Indian nationals of ‘nepali-hill origin’, is a clear manifestation of the growing frustration of a section of the Indian ruling class and its associates over Nepal’s recent political development and ties with China. 

A resident of Bihar’s bordering area with Nepal and also someone who played an important role in the signing of the 12-point accord between the then Seven-Party Alliance and the Maoists of Nepal, Saran’s interest in Nepal is quite understandable. But while his observations are thoroughly one-sided, his statements are, more often than not, factually incorrect. As someone who believes in the theory that India’s smaller neighbours, particularly Nepal, should remain under its ‘influence’, Saran does not conceal his disdain of Nepal’s new constitution which was promulgated defying Delhi’s dictates. Naturally, he is also unhappy with Nepal’s increasing closeness with China, especially with regard to the recent transit treaty signed between the two. I have, therefore, some questions for Mr Saran.

 Clarification please

I’ll begin with your statement that says “As India’s ambassador, I had formally requested that India should be enabled to engage in trade with China through Nepal…(But) this was studiously ignored”. Given Nepali leader’s yearning to make Nepal a ‘bridge’ (of trade) between her two giant neighbours, this revelation does not sound convincing, especially when you have not given any details. Could you therefore, prove or substantiate your allegations please?

You also claim that “China has over the past several years, built a number of highways across the Nepal-Tibet border linking up with Nepal’s East-West highway”. The fact is that not a single north-south road that connects the Chinese border to the East-West highway (which lies in the southern belt of the Tarai) exists in this country. Kodari highway, which is in use since half a century, links Kathmandu with China. The still under-construction Syafrubesi road links Tibet’s Kerung with Galchhi along the Kathmandu-Pokhara highway (which was also built by the Chinese some 45 years ago). Similarly, a couple of high-altitude roads, like one each in Mustang and Humla will, when completed, link with Tibet’s bordering towns.

nd, these roads are not built for military purposes; they are essential for the development of the rugged Himalayan region of northern Nepal and for the livelihood of people living there. They are also too far away from the Indian border.

With regard to Nepal’s contentment over the recent signing of the first ever transit treaty and other agreements of cooperation with China, you opine that “problem with Kathmandu’s misplaced triumphalism is that it may encourage the capital’s elite to close the door to political compromise with Madhesis and Janajatis.” Your apprehension that with China’s backing, Kathmandu will backtrack from compromises reached with its own people is outrageous, to say the least. You are trying to undermine, albeit indirectly, Nepal’s elected Constituent Assembly (CA) that endorsed the constitution as ‘capital’s elite’. In some way, you are also alleging that our democracy is not inclusive. Mr Saran, could you answer, where was your inclusive democracy when over one hundred thousand Bhutanese Nepalis or Lhotsampas (one-sixth of the total population of Bhutan) were forcibly exiled into Nepal with your full complicity? Where was your ‘political compromise’ when you refused to honour your own promise made in the UN to conduct a plebiscite in Kashmir, and, instead, resorted to oppression there?

The ‘Pahadi-Madhesi’ card

You also “warn (Kathmandu) against projecting the ‘Pahadi-Madhesi’ divide as Nepal-India issue”, something which you argue will pose a “threat to Nepal’s (own) unity and political stability.” Rest assured Mr Saran, Nepali people are not fools to pursue such a self-destructive course. People of Nepal, as well as the international community, know very well who is playing the ‘Pahadi-Madhesi’ card and why.

You further argue that “to equate them (the Madhesis) with Indians is as pernicious as is the convenient silence over the vast number of Indian citizens who are of Nepali Pahari origin.” Mr Saran, let me clarify two things in this regard. First, although the major political parties of Nepal that enjoyed the majority vote of the Madhesis during the last CA election have serious differences with leaders of the Madhesi parties on a number of issues, they never equate their Madhesi brethren with Indians. Second, as far as the ‘Pahadi-Madhesi divide’ is concerned, fuelling it will do no good to India either that has a substantial population of hill-people which includes, among others, people of Nepali descent. Your veiled threats toward Nepali speaking Indians who already are one of the marginalised communities of your country are provocative, unwarranted and uncalled for—at least in the present context. They also defy the values of multiculturalism and inclusive democracy, nourished by the likes of Mahatma Gandhi, Pundit Nehru and Babasaheb Ambedkar.

 Future topics

You are also worried that “China is making inroads into our sub-continental neighbourhood, posing economic and security challenges.” Sir, your continued ‘Sino-phobia’ from the war days of 1960s is totally outdated; it reflects neither the ground reality nor the globalised thinking of the 21st century. All the same, you are free to live with your phobia; but we as an independent nation want to cultivate and maintain equally good relationship with China too, for our mutual benefit and for the benefit of all in the region.

So much for whatever you have written. Any Indian ambassador to Nepal will certainly have many more to write about and reveal. We know that Kathmandu does not only have the largest Indian mission, a Kathmandu posting is also the most prized posting for any Indian diplomat, mainly because of the clout Indian diplomats enjoy in Nepal’s power circles. Anecdotes of India’s micro-management in Nepal’s internal affairs, adventures of its hegemonic and interventionist Nepal policy that has, more or less, remained unchanged since the colonial days, blockades occasionally used as tools of political bargain, stories behind the inking of the 12-point accord, covert and overt operations of RAW in this country (to whatever extent an ambassador has the knowledge of) and so on are the subject we want to hear from you. We will wait for your next article (a book is even more welcome) that may throw light on topics like these, provided you maintain objectivity and factual correctness unlike this time.