Presenting an objective view of Nepal-India relations in today’s political climate is no easy task. Anyone who attempts this risks being caught in a hostile political crossfire--labeled either as a China-backed anti-Indian propagandist, a reactionary force, or a supporter of Pakistani interests opposed to India.
But such a shallow and frivolous conclusion would be nothing short of a deep seated political bigotry or presumptuousness. Nepal’s concerns are neither concocted nor are sponsored by any third party design against India. They all are based on acrid realities that the Himalayan nation has been compelled to bear with over the years.
Despite the deep historical ties and shared cultural bonds between their peoples, an overwhelming mistrust—rooted in irreconcilable political differences--divides the two governments diplomatically, psychologically, and politically. With the passage of time these differences have been spuriously associated with India’s security paranoia or having a profound bearing upon its national interests.
A thorough scrutiny of Nepal-India ties over the last seventy years or so would reveal that broadly four crucial issues have plagued their relationship. If an enduring friendship accompanied by an unsparing cooperation is to be restored these irritants need to be addressed amicably and without any diplomatic shenanigans whatsoever. Its onus lies on India.
The tapestry of Nepal-India relations is heavily dominated by the Treaty of Peace and Friendship 1950 which has incrementally widened the chasm between the two neighbors. A significant section of the Nepali intelligentsia concludes that the Treaty, besides being inherently one sided and not reflective of the changed political circumstances, is bereft of the universal principles and norms that govern inter-state relations. Owing to an open border between them Nepal had no choice but to absorb a phenomenal influx of Indian nationals as well as refugees from Bangladesh, Bhutan and Myanmar in recent years causing thereby a potential demographic imbalance and racial tension between immigrant communities and indigenous ethnicities. The process continues unabated. This has been one of the major concerns for Nepal. Thus, Articles VI and VII of the Treaty have always remained contentious. Whereas Article V has ever remained inoperative due to its disuse or non-compliance by both the parties.
When the treaty was signed, no one perhaps foresaw that it would later become a source of contention and strain in their bilateral relations. However, India has always remained apathetic toward Nepal’s diplomatic initiatives to update the Treaty so as to make it reflective of the present day realities.
The ‘Eminent Persons' Group’, a high level committee formed by the two countries to review their bilateral relations and suggest measures to further consolidate them, reportedly prepared a comprehensive draft a couple of years ago. Though its report has not yet seen the light of the day knowledgeable sources maintain that the experts group had unanimously endorsed to revise the Treaty so as to address various bilateral issues including the problems created by the open border between them. But the Indian side is believed to have backtracked from their earlier agreement and the entire brainstorming of the experts group turned out to be bootless and the document is destined to remain in a diplomatic limbo for an indefinite period. So far, India has refused to accept it, let alone revise the disputed treaty provisions. It is a sad irony that India, being a party to forming the EPG, has eventually taken a double standard policy toward its recommendations.
Owing to Nepal’s heavy reliance on Indian political backing, India has disproportionately benefited from major hydroelectric projects like Koshi, Gandaki, and Tanakpur.
The other issue that has dampened Nepal-India relations is the unlawful occupation of Kalapani, Limpiyadhura and Lipulekh by India for several decades now, in addition to their physically encroaching upon other Nepali territories at more than 50 points along the border from Pashupatinagar to Kanchanpur. The Treaty of Sugauli (1816) and the subsequent Agreement of 1860 had clearly defined the border between the two countries. However, the demarcation of the boundary, carried out largely by using traditional technology, remained inconclusive in several segments including the riverine sectors of Susta and Mechi. Over time, the border issue became increasingly complicated due to India's gradual encroachments and natural changes in river courses that served as traditional boundary markers. Nevertheless, the most contentious issue, above all, continues to be the occupation of Kalapani by India, seriously offending the Nepali sentiment.
India’s unilateral construction of barrages, dams and roads at various places along the border, causing extensive inundation of Nepal’s agricultural land in several Tarai districts during the monsoon season, is against the principles of sharing natural resources for mutual benefits. Several meetings of the so-called high-level technical committees formed by the two countries to address the problems of inundation have always turned out to be futile. They simply continue their insipid dialogues.
Owing to political myopia Nepal’s political leaders in the past have committed several blunders while signing treaties with India with regard to various hydro-projects. Wittingly or unwittingly they have been quite oblivious to the country’s paramount national interests, too. Owing to Nepal’s heavy reliance on Indian political backing, India has disproportionately benefited from major hydroelectric projects like Koshi, Gandaki, and Tanakpur. The much-talked-about Pancheshwar project, which forms an integral part of the controversial Mahakali treaty, has remained like a fantasy never to be realized. Even after a lapse of 27 years they have not prepared its DPR yet. The Indian side is simply holding Nepal’s water resources like a dog in the manger.
Though it is more or less a closed chapter now, India always resorted to the doctrine of bilateralism between Nepal and Bhutan in resolving the enormous human tragedy of the hundred thousand Bhutanese refugees of Nepali ethnicity. Nepal’s repeated diplomatic appeals--calling for mediation to resolve the stalemate and enable the displaced Bhutanese to return to their homeland--were invariably met with India’s glacial response. It has inflicted a deep wound in the Nepali mind.
Rumors are rife that India is contemplating to build a high dam on the Koshi River to protect its agricultural land in Bihar during the monsoon with utter disregard to its adverse effects on Nepal if the nascent project moves forward. Given the paucity of political honesty and absence of positive vision for the country on their part, Nepal’s political leaders might concede to the Indian pressure on this issue too.
Nevertheless, this is not the time for exchanging hate-filled stereotypes, but rather for exploring ways to resolve outstanding disputes and restore the mutual understanding and goodwill that have been fractured for so long. For Nepal, it is high time to adopt an inward-looking approach and ask: What should be the ideal model of Nepali nationalism that the country projects? Only incorporating the lost territory into the map does not grant any credentials to Prime Minister Oli that he is a genuine nationalist. Let it not be limited to a political stunt to bamboozle the naïve Nepali masses. Similarly, the conduct of India’s Nepal policy architects should be guided more by a comprehensive and consistent policy than a colonial orientation tied to several controversial elements pestering the two countries for decades.
(Mr Khanal is a former Chief of Protocol at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nepal.)
.
