Moves should be made early to work on resolving boundary-related contentions. The people of Nepal have worked hard to bring about a change of state power.
In principle, a Nepali national can head the Indian Army. But in practice, ties between the two countries have mostly been sweet and sour — with prolonged spells of sour. This, for instance, is the case at present with the people of southern Nepal in protest and India being blamed for the fiasco. Time after time it has been seen that the story of India-Nepal relations is one of the near being too far, and this is how it has been since the signing of the India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship in 1950 and the accompanying exchange of secret letters.
The letters were meant to engender a special relationship so that the two countries may be of support to each other on the security front if either felt the heat from a third country. The special deal was meant to promote trade, transit through India of Nepali goods to other countries and the other way round, and allow a free and easy two-way movement of people. We have an open border with Nepal — and this is a special dispensation flowing from the 1950 treaty. This does not obtain with any other neighbour of India’s. Nepal people can live and work in India and enjoy all facilities of an Indian citizen. They can even gain government employment (although there are exceptions).
Similar ease exists for Indians in Nepal, although Indian nationals can’t be in government service. Passports and visas are not needed, although border management in recent years has been a problem for security considerations relating to smuggling and the spread of extremism and terrorism. When ties have been at a low ebb, the Nepalese have required Indians to gain work permits and this has caused bitterness.
Nepal is a natural buffer for India in relation to China. The importance of the Himalayan republic for India’s security can hardly be overstated. If China were to build a road to the Indian border through Nepal territory, for instance, warning bells would ring in New Delhi. Nepal’s status as a buffer would be extinguished and it is unlikely that the system of open borders can continue. These are crucial reasons why India needs to maintain a tight relationship with Nepal.
Besides, there is the age-old bond of civilisation, culture, and a strong religious overlay of an emotional link as India’s largely Hindu population and Nepal’s almost exclusively Hindu demographic have much in common — festivals, rituals, temples — indeed, it may be said with only slight exaggeration that religious tourism from India alone accounts for a good proportion of Nepal’s annual earnings.
Inter-marriages and social exchanges between people on both sides are common. Nepalis regularly do their wedding shopping in Indian cities, particularly Varanasi and Patna, which are a stone’s throw away. Millions of Nepal citizens live and work in India and freely travel back and forth. Daily supplies from India feed markets in Nepal. With no other country can Nepal have the range of ties that is sustained in the natural course with India. This is not due to geography alone, and is irrespective of the nature of government in either country. This hoary relationship will be hard to snap even if a particular dispensation in Kathmandu were to, say, choose to become a client of Beijing for arms purchases (which has raised hackles in India in the past).
From time to time Nepal, in periods of dissatisfaction with India or in order to feed particular constituencies, especially in the Kathmandu valley, has asked for a revision of the 1950 treaty. However, the specifics of a projected revision are not outlined and the treaty survives in its fundamentals. This serves both sides well.
But Nepal rulers do play the China card against India from time to time. This was specially so under the late King Birendra. Marxists of different stripes have also succumbed to the temptation. But such schemes cannot possibly confer much leverage on Nepal, for they are self-limiting, given the nature of the link at the people level that has existed through the ages.
The inter-meshing nature of the societies in the two countries has not been able to offer a uniformly smooth relationship at the government level, however — so much so that the two countries have not even been able to demarcate their boundary in all these years, and disputes persist about territory and river waters issues, and the latter clouds the harnessing of Nepal’s massive hydroelectric potential, among the world’s richest, which can generate impressive revenues for Nepal and transform it if the electricity is sold to India once Nepal’s own needs have been met.
The jinx in official ties has cut across regimes in India. Nepal was a Hindu kingdom before it became a republic recently. The RSS and the BJP thought India would have it easy with a Hindu ruler and a Hindu state in place, but they were disappointed. The Narendra Modi government is dealing with a secular democratic republic, and it hardly fared any better.
So, why have things not worked? Certainly an important reason has been Nepal’s triumph in emerging as a democratic republic after decades of sustained struggle with the monarchy, and India’s support to this spirit, which the monarchy resented.
Toward the end of 1950, King Tribhuvan, with his son Mahendra and older grandson Birendra, had to take refuge in the Indian embassy in Kathmandu before they transferred to India for a few months in the course of the king’s struggle with the regime of the Ranas, who had made themselves hereditary Prime Ministers since 1816 and held sway.
The royal entourage was welcomed by India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who helped the king return to Kathmandu in good grace. Nehru turned down the suggestion from the ruler that India take over Nepal. Even so, subsequently, the monarchy was uneasy with Nepal’s rising democratic aspirations and India’s backing to this enterprise in various ways.
India was accused of meddling in Nepal’s internal affairs — and that refrain is yet to die down. At a later stage it was taken over by Marxists of all styles, including the Maoists, who would emerge as a powerful force by 2006, at the end of Jan Andolan-II, after a protracted armed struggle. Will Nepal society and its political stream regain its poise after the proclamation of a republican and secular Constitution last September? If competitive populism does not take over in the country, this may be possible, and in time Kathmandu may begin to regard New Delhi with a greater sense of equanimity, without being swamped by fears of living in the shadow of a much bigger neighbour, a more mature democracy (“big brother”).
It will behove New Delhi to calm any anxieties in Nepal, and sort out relatively minor issues with grace. Moves should also be made early to work on resolving the boundary-related contentions. The people of Nepal have worked hard — over decades — to bring about a wholesale change of state power. This should command our respect. Indeed, in many senses Nepal has travelled farther down the democratic road than any other neighbour of India, the current Madhesi question notwithstanding. Modi should borrow a leaf from Nehru’s book in dealing with the new reality.
It would help if Kathmandu were less suspicious and more self-confident in its dealing with India and not consumed by minor or phoney fears. Its political class could make a start with entering negotiations on hydropower issues. Sometimes, it boils down to neighbours not being cussed.
Download the all new Deccan Chronicle app for Android and iOS to stay up-to-date with latest headlines and news stories in politics, entertainment, sports, technology, business and much more from India and around the world.
