MeddlEsome Neighbour

When Jaishankar visited Kathmandu as India’s external affairs minister in August 2019, bilateral hiccups had become a recurring feature of India-Nepal relations. Following the blockade, Nepal’s president cancelled his planned visit to India at the last minute. Soon after, the then Communist Party of Nepal pinned the blame on India for ousting the KP Oli-led regime. Despite senior BJP leader Subramaniyam Swami’s assurance that the Modi government sought to regain Nepal’s trust after initiating the undeclared border blockade on the “advice of bureaucrats”, the wounds left by New Delhi’s actions had yet to heal.

Amid this hostile political climate, Jaishankar returned with a proposal to revive India’s partnership with Nepal and thereby recalibrate ties between the two countries. While skeptics in Nepal have argued that India’s decision to send Jaishankar to extend an olive branch reflects bad optics, the messenger shouldn’t be seen as more important than the message that India has delivered to Nepal.

It is in Nepal’s best interest to accept India’s diplomatic overtures and strengthen its ties with the country. Under these circumstances, efforts to revive bilateral relations should not be misconstrued as attempts to weaken Nepal’s national fabric.

Unfortunately, the Telegraph Nepal article does just that. It condemns Nepal’s ruling elite as “enemies of [a sovereign and independent Nepal” for their “aberrations in [the] diplomatic domain” that have reduced Nepalese leaders to “mere servants of the Indian union”. The opinion piece fails to put KP Oli’s private meeting with the Indian external affairs minister in the right historical and geopolitical context and simply cites it as an example of a diplomatic move that undermines Nepal’s national interests.

If recent developments are taken into consideration, this comes through as a rather simplistic interpretation of a complex issue. In October 2019, Nepal’s constitution was conferred the Future Policy Silver Award for its provisions on inclusive representation in policymaking and discriminatory practices. Even if Nepal hadn’t bagged a prestigious accolade for its legal framework from international organizations such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the World Future Council and UNDP, it wouldn’t require the blessings of another country to enact the provisions of its constitution. KP Oli’s request should, therefore, be viewed as a cosmetic measure to iron out any differences and undo the damage caused by interruptions in Nepal’s bilateral linkages with India. Such trust-building initiatives will be pivotal in resolving the underlying friction between both states.

At this stage, both countries need to work towards resolving a diverse menu of challenges that could impede bilateral cooperation. For instance, India and Nepal seem to have conflicting views on the role of the South Asian Association for Region Cooperation (SAARC) in the current context. In 2018, Nepal withdrew from the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC)’s military drills in Pune. Analysts believed that the decision was prodded by New Delhi’s ambition to project BIMSTEC as a viable substitute to SAARC. As the founding member of SAARC, Nepal has repeatedly maintained that it has a duty to convene the 19th SAARC summit to revive the regional body. However, India is reportedly not in favour of a SAARC summit being held in the prevailing regional atmosphere.

In addition, Nepal’s burgeoning ties with both China and the US could adversely impact its relations with India if suitable steps aren’t taken to garner support from Indian leaders. As the country strives to maintain a delicate balance between adopting the vision of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the US Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) strategy, it must ensure that India is on its side. Over the years, India has expressed displeasure over China’s attempts to invest in infrastructural projects in South Asian countries and could potentially create difficulties for Nepal. In a similar vein, there is a strong likelihood that Kathmandu might develop a much stronger defence relationship with the US in the coming years. India tends to recruit the Gorkha regiments of the Indian Army from Nepal’s hill districts. As a result, any overtures by Kathmandu to solidify defence relations with the US might not generate a positive response from India. What’s more, the controversy generated in Nepal over a new political map that shows Kalapani as part of India shows that there are still quite a few sticking points between both neighbours.

When compared to these challenges, KP Oli’s request for Modi to recognize Nepal’s constitution appears rather trivial. With new challenges emerging at every juncture, India and Nepal must allow bilateral ties to be steered through pragmatism. Both countries must work towards honouring the 1950 Treaty of Peace and circumvent all issues that could produce a diplomatic impasse.