The first meeting of the Eminent Persons Group (EPG), a committee of senior dignitaries from Nepal and India that has been asked to identify ways to strengthen relations between the two countries over the longer term, concluded on Tuesday.

By all accounts, the meeting was warm and cordial. And for this reason alone, the maiden EPG session has to be considered a positive achievement. For, ever since New Delhi’s undeclared blockade on Nepal, the bilateral relations have been extremely poor. The Oli government continues to harbour grievances towards Delhi, not least spiked again by its suspicions that it was again active in bringing the NC and the Maoists together to pull down the ruling coalition.

The ebb and flow of ties tends to have direct bearing on bilateral projects. The implementation of various agreements signed between the two countries has almost completely stalled. It is true that the EPG does not include individuals who directly hold power in their respective countries and the meeting will not have a direct impact. Nonetheless, the meeting has contributed to thawing the relationship between the two countries. We hope that the two governments will be able to follow up and take steps towards a more concrete improvement in relations.

In their meeting, participants from the two sides proposed various ways to strengthen ties. We hope they will be able to put in place a narrative over a longer term that development cooperation could be insulated from the political fallout between powers that be in Kathmandu and Delhi. But that will need a lot of foresight, patience and sensitivities in conducting foreign policy objectives.

Optics of EPG aside, there was a fundamental difference in the positions of the EPG members of the two countries. The Nepali delegation was primarily concerned with a revision of the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which many Nepalis consider as Mother of Treaties that underscores our asymmetry and unless that is first addressed other positive bilateral developments will mean little in internalising the changed context of bilateral relations and regional dynamics. The Indian side, on the other hand, was keener to discuss economic cooperation in fields such as connectivity, infrastructure, energy, trade and commerce, and information and communication.

Nepal’s stance on the 1950 treaty was neither unexpected nor difficult to comprehend. As a much smaller and weaker country, Nepal has long had insecurities regarding its sovereignty. Still, Nepali politicians need to articulate what specific provisions in the treaty we wish to amend and reach consensus on specific provisions that need to be amended. It is crucial that we do not allow excessive emotion to cloud our judgement. For example, it would be a great shame if cross-border movement is restricted, though it is time to discuss how to better monitor the porous border.

Over the medium term, we hope that the two countries will be able to overcome issues like the 1950 treaty that continue to cause friction in the relationship. Once this is done, it will be possible to move on to the establishment of a deeper relationship on the economic front and the shared prosperity of the peoples of the two countries. Border blockade of a landlocked country should never be a policy option between neighbours. EPG could start with documenting such tangibles to demonstrate that it is serious about redefining the bilateral ties for good.