Another fence-mending effort

BRP Bhaskar

Gulf Today

A fortnight after the visit to China to re-set relations with that country, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was in Nepal during the weekend on a similar mission.

India always had a special relationship with Nepal, which, apart from being a neighbour, is the only other Hindu-majority country on earth. They have an open border and citizens of the two countries do not need passport and visa to travel from one to the other. 

Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party nurses hopes of making India a Hindu nation and he was unhappy when Nepal proclaimed itself a secular republic in 2015, ignoring his appeal to delay the promulgation of the new Constitution. 

Bilateral relations deteriorated when the Modi administration backed the demand by the Madhesis, who are Nepalese of Indian descent, for changes in the Constitution. As the Madhesis resorted to a violent agitation close to the border, free flow of goods to the land-locked country got disrupted. 

The basic framework of India-Nepal relations was set by the British in the colonial period. Apart from its usefulness as a buffer state, Britain cultivated Nepal as a source of Gorkha soldiers for its fighting forces.

The Indian government, as successor to the British colonial administration, retained this framework. The provisions of the India-Nepal Friendship Treaty of 1950 fit into it. 

Nepal’s political parties now consider it an unequal treaty. Changes in the immediate neighbourhood and the Asian region clearly call for readjustment of relations between the two countries on the basis of equality.

With Nepal going through a phase of political instability, marked by frequent changes of government, there was little forward movement for a few years. Things started looking up last year which saw a spurt in exchange of high-level visits. 

The year also witnessed significant contacts between Nepal and China. Prime Minister Prachanda, who is also head of the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Centre (CPN-MC), had a meeting with President Xi Junping when he was in China for the Boao Forum for Asia conference. The Chinese and Nepalese armies held a 10-day joint military drill on counter-terrorism and disaster response.

The army chiefs of both India and China were also in Nepal last year.

In the three-level elections which began in 2017 the Left alliance comprising Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) and CPN-MC, campaigning on a nationalist plank with anti-India overtones, won a decisive victory, picking up 116 out of 165 seats filled under the first-past-the-post system. 

CPN-UML’s K.P. Singh Oli, who took over as the Prime Minister, is considered pro-China but he said his government would follow an independent policy.

The stage was set for a bid to improve bilateral relations when Modi telephoned Oli and other leaders and felicitated them on the successful conduct of the elections. 

Oli chose India for his first official visit. Before leaving for New Delhi, he told the Nepalese Parliament the visit was aimed at deepening the relations that had subsisted between the two countries since ages.

Official statements that emerged after Oli’s visit to New Delhi and Modi’s visit to Kathmandu indicate that the two sides are moving cautiously. The Indian side was silent on Nepal’s internal issues like the Madhesi problem and the Nepalese side made no mention of the need to revise the 1950 treaty. 

Modi’s initial mishandling of the Madhesi issue helped China to enhance its influence in Nepal, particularly through investment in infrastructure and connectivity projects which will reduce dependence on India for transit trade As the Madhesi agitation hit essential supplies, Nepal turned to China for help. Beijing was ready to help but there were logistical problems as China’s ports and commercial centres are far away. 

Nepal has joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative, from which India is keeping aloof. But it has also evinced interest in improving connectivity with India through railways and waterways. 

India cannot match China on investments. But, then, China cannot easily displace India as Nepal’s main trading partner. Nepal’s trade with India last year was about $5.9 billion while that with China was only about $900 million. 

Geopolitical realties demand re-casting the relations between the two countries on a new basis. But, while in Nepal, Modi, with an eye to his Hindutva clientele at home, harped on mythological links. A bus service connecting Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh, birthplace of Lord Rama, and Sitapur in Nepal, birthplace of his consort, Sita, was started during his visit. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, Nay 16, 2018

From buffer state to bridge

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

In the age of imperialism, the Himalayan kingdom of Nepal retained its independence by becoming a buffer state between the expanding British power and the declining Chinese. A landlocked country with fewer than 30 million people, it is now seeking a new role as a bridge between its giant neighbours.

When India became a democratic republic and China came under Communist rule, Nepal maintained its status as the world’s only Hindu kingdom with power in the hands of the Ranas, who were the prime ministers. In the 1950s, anti-Rana forces overthrew the Ranas, ushering in an era of constitutional monarchy with a multi-party political system. Centuries-old cultural ties helped India to develop a special relationship with it.

In 2008, even as the divided polity was grappling with the problem of drawing up a new democratic constitution, an elected assembly put an end to monarchy. The constitution, which came into force last year, declared Nepal a secular republic.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, which was busy expanding its Hindu base at home, was not happy with the development.

The Madhesis, an ethnic group which has ties with people across the Indian border, sought changes in the constitution to safeguard their interests. With the tacit approval of New Delhi, they blocked movement of goods from India, which lasted five months, causing serious shortage of oil, for which the country relied entirely on India.

The Madhesi agitation prompted the ruling Communist Party of India-United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) to turn to China for assistance. China was ready to help but transport and communication bottlenecks restricted its ability to render quick assistance.

A constitutional amendment which addressed the Madhesi concerns partially led to lifting of the blockade and easing of tension. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli took an early opportunity to make his first visit to India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi welcomed the constitutional amendment but asked for more changes. Oli’s visit ended without the customary joint statement.

Last week Oli visited China, hailing it as an “all-weather friend” that had helped Nepal at times of distress. The two countries signed 10 agreements and issued a joint communiqué which, according to Nepalese commentators, has significant implications for the country’s economic development, democratisation and relations with India.

When the Oli visit was being planned there were reports that the two countries would also sign a deal which would provide for Nepal buying one-third of its fuel requirements from China. This was dropped later and Oli faced criticism at home for yielding to Indian pressure.

The joint communiqué indicated that the fuel trade deal is still on the cards.

One of the agreements envisages feasibility studies on Chinese assistance for exploration of oil and natural gas resources in Nepal.

The most important agreements are those relating to transit facilities through China and road and rail access to its ports. They hold out the prospects of ending Nepal’s near-total dependence on India for contacts with the rest of the world.

The long distance to the Chinese ports may inhibit their wide use. However, when the contemplated road and rail access becomes a reality, Nepal will be able to use ports in Bangladesh, which are not more distant than Kolkata on which it now depends.

One agreement provides for Chinese assistance for the construction of an international airport at Pokhara.

Nepalese journalist Kanak Mani Dixit suggested it was the long blockade by India that emboldened the country’s political class to sign the deal in Beijing. Without the public opinion created as a result of that thoughtless adventurism, no leader, including Oli, would have gone the distance in inking the 10 agreements, he said, adding: “It has suddenly become possible to talk to China as Nepal does with India after decades of running scared.”

Dixit said there was no reason for India to panic as the development of trans-Himalayan linkages would benefit it too. He also felt there was no need for Nepal to be too beholden to Beijing as China, particularly its Tibet region, will also benefit from the agreements.

During Oli’s visit, China expressed full support for Nepal’s new Constitution, over which India still has some reservations. But the possibility of India’s sympathy for Madhesi aspirations emerging as a point of conflict has somewhat lessened with the leadership of that ethnic group establishing direct communications with China too.

Nepal’s hopes of becoming a bridge can only succeed if its big neighbours are able to rise above the strategic concepts of the imperial phase. There have been suggestions from some quarters that Nepal should restore monarchy and become a Hindu kingdom again to check the growth of Chinese influence. That will be a case of the cure being worse than the disease.-- Gulf Today, Sharjah, March 29, 2016.

Nepal ties under strain

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

Ten mnths ago, visiting Nepal, Prime Minister Narendra Modi signed more than 10 bilateral agreements, demonstrating his government’s readiness to go the extra mile for this small neighbour. Alluding to the efforts to frame a new Constitution, he warned that if the statute failed to reflect the aspirations of all communities, including Madhesis, Pahadis and Maoists, Nepal could face difficulties.

Nepal is facing those difficulties now.

On September 20, President Ram Baran Yadav promulgated the new Constitution, rejecting India’s plea to postpone it to provide time to make it acceptable to the largest number of people.

Madheshis, Tharus and Janjatis living in the Teria region, who have close ties with the people of the bordering Indian state of Bihar, were up in arms even before the Constitution was promulgated. They say it denies them a legitimate share in the political system. About 50 persons have died in the violence and repression in the region so far.

Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar, who visited Nepal as Modi’s special envoy, conveyed India’s concern to leaders of all parties. He argued that the Constitution was not acceptable to nearly 40 per cent of the population and it should not be introduced while there was widespread unrest.

Nepal took up the task of making a republican constitution following abolition of the monarchy in 2008. As the fractious constituent assembly could not complete the task in the allotted time it was dissolved and a new one elected. Acute differences among the parties hampered its working too.

Early this month, the mainstream parties agreed on a Constitution which proclaims Nepal a secular democracy.

Many Nepalese leaders told Jaishankar they were aware that the document was imperfect but they wanted to move forward, and were ready to make suitable amendments later on.

Officially, India’s objections to the new Constitution are based on the discontent among the Madhesis and others who have familial links with India. The Modi administration’s hostile position may also be related to unhappiness over Nepal becoming a secular republic.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the fountainhead of the Hindutva ideology of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, has long been of the view that India is a Hindu nation. Its top leaders have publicly demanded scrapping of the reference to secularism in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution.

Nepal is the only other Hindu-majority country in the world, and the RSS views its endorsement of the secular ideal as an act of betrayal.

Nepal, with a population of 27 million, is a land-locked country. It has borders with India on three sides and with China on the fourth. It gets most of its requirements of essential supplies from or through India. It relies exclusively on the state-owned Indian Oil Corporation for petroleum products.

The violent agitation in areas close to the Indian borders has brought vehicular traffic between the two countries to a halt. Hundreds of trucks carrying supplies to Nepal are reportedly stranded at Indian border checkposts.

Nepalese media allege that India has imposed an unofficial blockade to force the country to accept its demand. The Indian government refutes the suggestion and claims the goods movement has stopped because of the violence on the Nepalese side.

It is in India’s interest to delink the issue of goods movement from the political problem. Some elements in the Madhesi community may want to hold up movement of goods as a strategy to put pressure on Nepal’s mainstream parties to pay attention to their grievance. India should not play into their hands.

There are reports that the Nepalese authorities are turning to China to tide over the difficulties arising from the tense situation in the areas close to the Indian border.

“Nepal has never bowed down to anyone and will not bow down even now,” Deputy Prime Minister Bamdev Gautam told an Indian newspaper. “We will establish contact with China through land and with other countries through air to get essential supplies.”

Nepal has urged China to restore immediately the road links which were snapped by a devastating earthquake earlier this year.

Meanwhile a chink has appeared in the solid phalanx the mainstream parties presented so far with former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, who is supportive of Madhesi sentiments, quitting the United Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and resigning from Parliament, amid speculation of an Indian hand in the development.

As the Indian government has pointed out, the problem Nepal faces is a political one. Essentially, it is an internal problem of Nepal, and its political system must be able to resolve the outstanding issues without meddling by powerful neighbours. --Gulf Today, Sharjah, September 29, 2015.