India is a natural voice of Global South, a long standing partner in the South Asian neighbourhood
Nepal elections 2022 have delivered a fresh mandate for reinvigorated vision in the political leadership. Voters sought an alternative to traditional parties and mixed voices on the Nepal Constitution emerged, especially federalism, underrepresentation of marginalised communities of Madhes and Tharu, and return of constitutional monarchy. But there is no saying what the shifting of the tectonic plates will throw up in years ahead in Nepal.
Important veterans like Sher Bahadur Deuba, KP Oli, Pushpa Kamal Dahal (‘Prachanda’), Madhav Kumar Nepal and Mahanta Thakur retained their respective position but there is a parallel emergence of newly minted political leaders and their cohort, especially Rabi Lamichhane (Rashtriya Swatantra Party), a firebrand media personality, CK Raut (Janamat Party) who was seeking an Independent Madhes State once upon a time. He abandoned the secessionist movement and joined mainstream politics in an agreement with the Oli Government.
The voice of the Tharu community, particularly of the Western Tarai, came out loud and clear from the wins of the (Unmukti Party), led from jail by Resham Chaudhary. Another striking feature was that these were ‘Nepali-owned’ elections, even though there might have been some attempts at influencing the northern or southern neighbour.
Following the elections, however, leaders have reached out to Delhi and Beijing to lay their claim on the Prime Ministership. Is this not a breach of sovereignty? It is advisable for the international partners to maintain a low profile, for past experience has shown that Nepali leaders may make a show of fealty but eventually they go ahead and do as they please according to national political exigencies.
Despite the fractured mandate, a return of the ruling coalition (Nepali Congress, Maoist Centre and others) is likely, unless they decide to change their minds. But that is hardly likely to please the citizenry because of the ineffectiveness of the coalition governments of the past two years. Although the coalition was apparently led by the NC’s Sher Bahadur Deuba as nominal head, actual strings were pulled by the CPN (Maoist Centre) chair Dahal.
If NC prevails in leading the Government, it is imperative that it retains key ministerial portfolios to ensure governance is in sync for Nepal’s economic growth. It’s worth noting that KP Oli’s CPN (UML) performed equivalently as the NC, and the two parties remain the top favourites. Coming slightly behind the NC in direct elections, the UML got the edge when it came to seats through proportional representation, which makes up 40 per cent of Parliament.
If a pre-election coalition is maintained, UML would not have the numbers to form a government. But speculations are rife for the Congress and UML come together to form Government to provide semblance of political stability.
One can clearly see inhibition on part of Indian stakeholders, as well as the Indian media generally, not just to see an Oli-led government or even to have the UML in a coalition with the Congress. This is a myopic lack of pragmatism, and forgets the fact that it was in the time of the Oli-led Government that key India-Nepal national initiatives were launched. The party supports the idea of Indo-Nepal collaboration in areas of shared interest. It is important to remember that even when India-Nepal relations were strained during the 2015-2017 period, Beijing was not able to leverage in Nepal.
It is important for New Delhi to understand that some of the strained developments during the Oli Government were contextual, and they cannot be seen in isolation. While India is understandably worried about Chinese inroads into Nepal, it needs to remember that India has an upper hand when it comes to political understanding with Nepal’s leadership and even Beijing recognizes the depth of political relations between India and Nepal, while China’s main concern is to limit Tibet-related anti-China activities from Nepali territory, and also it has historically been willing to accept the special dynamic between Kathmandu and Delhi.
Nepal was not a priority for China on the whole, until activities of the West, primarily of the US, grew incongruously. China realises that its and India’s interests do not impede on each other in Nepal and the latter is hard-wired to be respectful of the historic relations with China and civilisational relations with India. Nepal values both neighbours but language, food, culture, customs and geography naturally and effortlessly bonds Nepal and India.
Will increased US interest and activities in the central Himalaya impact triangular dynamics between India, Nepal and China is a new subject of diplomatic inquiry. One set of Indian observers believe that Indian interests are protected with the growing US presence. But other than irking China and overlooking Indian interests, one cannot hope much from the growing US involvement in Nepal. We have seen in the past that the involvement of the US in the smaller states is not sustained with some sort of fatigue half way through.
India is a natural voice of Global South, a longstanding partner in the South Asian neighbourhood. New Delhi does not need the helping hand of the United States on Nepal in any sphere.
The continuous use of ‘civilisational relationship’ to exemplify Nepal-India relationship is a no-brainer. The other reality is that each sovereign state is continuously skeptical of the other, but this kind of healthy conflict must be welcomed as it keeps both neighbours on their toes vis-à-vis expectations and performance. This is what happens in a family among siblings.
Recently, when Nepali media pointed critically at the Indian Ambassador to Nepal meeting with senior leaders even before final results were announced, a natural question popped up: “Does India need to secure her interest?” Certainly not, neither vertically nor horizontally. One can say this because political alliances and ideology do not decide the Nepal-India relationship. Irrespective of ideologies, the political parties of Nepal are aligned with democratic parties of India, and the strength of this binding needs to be understood before making incursions to unduly influence government formation.
The anxiety is unwarranted, and New Delhi should stand ready to support any leading party. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had developed a deep connect with Nepal during his first visit in 2014. Despite what went on in between, he remains respected in Nepal both for the spiritual connect between the two national societies, but also because of Modi’s international stature. There is therefore a belief that under his leadership India can open up the gateway of prosperity for Nepal. If India were to eschew, let Nepali politics play out as it will, and concentrate instead on developing Nepal’s economy and helping Nepal’s youth look forward with hope to the national future through job creation, there will be nothing for New Delhi to worry about from the northern open border for decades on end.
(The author is a financial, geopolitical and security analyst)
