It is time for a friend of Nepal to overhaul the Nepal-India policy, in words and actions, and write a new chapter of history in Nepal-India bilateral relations
As Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi prepares to visit Nepal, social media networking sites are abuzz with tweets and posts on the significance of this event, with people taking to debates and sarcasm to prove their point.Preparations are afoot to welcome him at Pashupatinath Temple where the Indian PM will conduct a special puja, while Singha Durbar, the Nepal government secretariat, wears a new look as officials are busy keeping the area meticulously clean to welcome the “pro-development” leader.
The long-cherished wish of Mr Modi to visit the famous Hindu temple is going to be fulfilled next week. But it is not certainly easy for the Indian leader to give a new lease of life to the Nepal-India relations that are marked by insensitivity and high-handedness on the part of India and hypersensitivity and suspicion on the part of Nepal.
The fact that the executive head of India is visiting Nepal, “a close neighbour with special relationship”, after a gap of 17 years speaks volumes on the type of relations between the two countries. Mr Modi has to work really hard and sensibly to dispel the misunderstanding and bridge the trust deficit.
The onset of the Maoist insurgency in the late 1990s and hijacking of the Indian airline plane by Islamist terrorists from Kathmandu in 1999 gave a new twist to Indo-Nepal relations. Indian bureaucrats and Intelligence officials blew up the issue of “security threats” and took charge of Nepal policy in their own hands. Whatever relationship was extant at the political level was snapped. Nepal-India relations reached a new low when a former JNU professor revealed that he worked as a middleman between India’s security establishment and Nepal’s Maoist insurgents who were “allowed to work freely” from Indian territory after striking a “security deal”. India’s involvement in the formation and dissolution of successive governments in Kathmandu after the regime change in 2006 only raised questions over the southern neighbour’s motives.
Secondly, Indian assistance to Nepal has increased over the years. But, while the investment in Nepal’s political domain has increased drastically, economic development has taken a backseat. Things have only moved from bad to worse. Investment in unproductive area leads to corruption. Exaggerating security threats, spending huge amounts of money in the operation of its Intelligence services (RAW is reportedly conducting one of its largest operations in Nepal) and maintaining relations with Nepal’s different political actors through “middlemen” of different hues and colours have only hurt the bilateral relations. Not surprisingly, the first Nepali politician who got the opportunity to meet Mr Modi immediately after his election to the helm publicly states that he works as a “middleman” between India’s establishment and different actors of Nepal. Soon after he met Mr Modi, he posted his picture on Facebook to show his connections! India should get rid of such middlemen.
Similarly, India is seen to be favoring one actor over the others. Why should India do thatIJ Use of Nepal’s Tarai against the establishment in Kathmandu for strategic gains is uncalled for and an outdated idea at this juncture. Nepal and India enjoy historic ties at multiple levels and the latter doesn’t really need to turn to divisive politics to secure its interests in Nepal. It is a positive thing that India’s Minister for External Affairs Sushma Swaraj chided the leaders from Nepal’s plain region (who have family ties with those from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh) when the latter told her that they were being treated as “second-class citizens” and sought her support to fight for “justice”. What is important is India should keep distance from the internal affairs of Nepal in deed, not just in word.
Thirdly, India should initiate the process of repairing the damage not by offering sops but by taking the level of interactions to many notches up, and opening its market to Nepal. In the run-up to Modi’s visit, Nepali politicians were asked to choose a hydropower project which would be constructed as a ‘gift’ to Nepal. Sadly, it is not the first time India has promised to construct such a project.
India is known for its poor delivery. Perhaps that’s the difference between India and China as the saying goes: “India promises, China delivers”. Not surprisingly, Chinese investments are surpassing to that of India.
In fact, what Nepal really needs is not the construction of a project, but a power trade agreement.
But Indian policy doesn’t seem to have changed. In response to Nepal’s proposal on power trade agreement sent in 2010, India recently dispatched a draft proposal on “cooperation in energy sector” proposing to bar the involvement of third countries in the hydropower development of Nepal. It was not a power trade agreement proposal as widely understood in the Indian media. The message was clear: only India or Indian companies should have the right to invest in hydropower projects if we are to buy electricity from Nepal. India is a major energy market for Nepal and signing of a power trade agreement would help Nepal attract foreign investments in hydropower sector. India already has the licences of so many hydropower projects of Nepal, which are yet to be constructed. People in Nepal quickly dubbed the proposal “an Indian move for colonial relationship” with Nepal.
Restoring Nepal-India policy to a political level and signing of a power trade agreement between two countries should be on top of the agenda when Prime Minister Modi visits Nepal. Said to be the strongest Prime Minister of India after Nehru, Narendra Modi has the potential to lay the ground for common prosperity and dispel the myths and misunderstandings that have long dogged Indo-Nepal relations. What Mr Modi should do is to minimise the roles of Indian bureaucracy — and its Intelligence wing — that is deeply involved in Nepali politics and instead deal with Nepal at a political level. India should not be seen playing divisive politics in Nepal or seeking maximum concessions by supporting anti-regime forces.
Finally, Mr Modi will certainly be judged in Nepal not by what he promises, but by how he performs. It is time for a friend of Nepal to overhaul the Nepal-India policy, in words and actions, and write a new chapter of history in Nepal-India bilateral relations.
(The writer is a Kathmandu-based journalist)