The recent visit of Nepal Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli to New Delhi seems to have eased back the bilateral relationship between the two countries to greater equanimity from which it had been dislodged by the Madhesi agitation in recent months.
This was Mr Oli’s second visit to India. He had made this country his first port of call last October on becoming Prime Minister. The discussions in New Delhi in the course of these trips have evidently helped clear “misunderstandings”, in Mr Oli’s words. This was the primary purpose of the Nepal leader’s meetings in India and he acknowledged as much at a public lecture last week.
The Madhesis, people of Indian origin who live in Nepal’s southern plains bordering India, had protested violently late last year in the belief that Nepal’s recently promulgated Constitution had not provided for sufficient political representation for them. They blocked goods entering Nepal from India, creating an acute crisis of essential commodities of everyday use, including petroleum, in the country.
Kathmandu believed India was punishing it through proxies, an allegation India stoutly denied and urged Nepal to sort out its internal difficulties through political means by seeking to assuage Madhesi sentiment.
When Mr Oli says “misunderstandings” have been cleared, we hope he means that the allegation against India of complicity with the terai dwellers no longer holds. If that’s not the case, the political class in Kathmandu could again rake up needless controversy and cast suspicions on this country.
Kathmandu deserves credit for at last passing amendments to its newly created Constitution to accommodate Madhesi sentiment. A political committee has also been set up to look at Madhesi grievances. In light of these recent developments foreign secretary S. Jaishankar noted that the “tone and tenor” of Mr Oli’s visit had been helpful. But he added that if Madhesi complaints went unaddressed, instability may ensue in Nepal. This suggests an attitude of caution.
External affairs minister Sushma Swaraj, who chaired the meeting at which Mr Oli spoke, made a pointed reference to the fact that those who resented friendly India-Nepal ties accused India of playing “big brother” while in reality India was Nepal’s “elder brother”. Such wordplay is fatuous in inter-state relations and liable to misleading interpretations. It was decent of Mr Oli to assure India that Nepal territory would not be used for anti-India acts and that his government was happy about India and Nepal having an open border. He has evidently gone some way in seeking to normalise ties, considering that in his political life his stance on India has generally been quite critical. New Delhi should also take some visible positive steps to further the present climate.
