Exploring India’s Nepal Policy As New Delhi and Kathmandu Wade Into Troubled Waters at the Border
As the world strives to come together to tackle the pandemic, South Asia is witnessing renewed tensions as a border dispute between India and Nepal has escalated to a point where inflammatory statements and protests have taken over diplomatic initiatives. It’s not just the politicians who are wading into the troubled waters but also the army, as the Indian army chief makes comments on the issue and the Nepali government deploys their troops on their side of the border as it revives border outposts and increases deployment.
When Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh inaugurated a border road passing through the Lipulekh Pass, right up to the border with Tibet, meant for Kailash Mansarovar pilgrims, New Delhi may not have anticipated that the inauguration would stir the hornet’s nest in neighbouring Nepal. The Nepali government reacted swiftly, issuing a public statement protesting the road’s development and then handing over a note to the Indian ambassador.
Experts believe New Delhi should have been more far-sighted. Pramod Jaiswal, a senior fellow at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, said it is unfortunate that the Indian government would inaugurate a road through a disputed territory in the midst of a pandemic when countries should come together to fight Covid-19.
Jaiswal said, “At the time when there is a strong condemnation of China’s aggressive behaviour with smaller countries such as Vietnam in South China Sea at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, India is seen as no exception. It is against the spirit of India’s “Neighbourhood First” policy to provoke its neighbour.”
Since then, the situation has only gone downhill. The street-to-parliament protests have taken over Nepal. The Nepali government has published new maps showing the disputed territory as theirs and Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has vowed to reclaim the disputed territory “at any cost”.
In India, Chief of the Army Staff General MM Naravane made a comment that took everyone by surprise. Going beyond his mandate as army chief, Gen. Naravane said Nepal was protesting on Lipulekh at someone else’s behest — a clear indication at China, since India is also locked in a very tense situation with China along the long and contested border.
Jaiswal said Gen. Naravane should not have made those comments when the external affairs ministry had already clarified the Indian position and had expressed the intention to resolve the issue diplomatically.
“I don’t think the army chief’s comment is the stand of the Indian government because if they had such a stand, it would have reflected in their comments. I don’t believe the government would ask the army chief to make comments on a border dispute with Nepal, with which India has such special relations. It is after all not an issue that has to be resolved through a war between the two countries,” said Jaiswal.
It has been said by some commentators that the Nepali government’s strong reaction is in response to domestic volatility. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli is locked in a power struggle within his party and it has been said that the entire issue is a ploy to divert the attention from the infighting to the border to get some breathing space. Experts The Dispatch consulted did not agree.
Sachchidanand Mishra, publisher of Himalini, one of the few Hindi magazines and portals in Nepal, said the government’s action is a reflection of the public anger, not political infighting.
“There has always been a sort of a resentment among the Nepali Pahadi class against India. In recent years, there has been a surge of nationalism in the country as well, and it is this nationalist sentiment and anger against India from the people that is driving the government’s stand and not the political situation,” said Mishra.
The issue of borders is volatile for any country, big or small, powerful or weak, Jaiswal said, and added that the protest by Nepal is therefore normal.
“The strong voice from the people forced the Nepali government to speak up and take a stand. Hence, it has nothing to do with the internal politics. Rather, much of the anger towards India and Indian policies for Nepal comes from the blockade of 2015 where they see a hidden Indian hand behind it,” said Jaiswal.
Indicting Indian policy towards Nepal, an Indian organiser of track two exchanges between India and Nepal said the Indian officers’ class continues to see Nepal from a colonial perspective where they see it as too small and insignificant. The organiser requested anonymity saying they have stakes on both sides of the border and therefore they prefer to not be named.
The organiser said, “They have not got out of the mindset of having a client state. They cannot see Nepal not towing their line. So they act against it. The 2015 blockade is an example. Comments by Indian officers such as that of the army chief show they cannot see Nepal having an agency to speak independently for itself.
“This officer class makes and implements Indian policies but they do so without consequences. State-to-state relations and people-to-people relations suffer but these officers never face anything. They complete their tenures and retire with all the benefits and go on to join think tanks and then they write books about how to amend the foreign policy that they themselves worsened!”
There has always been some level of resentment in Nepal for India, much so in the ruling class based in the hills. They have always disliked Indian intervention in their domestic affairs. Jaiswal pointed out that, in spite of that, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was wholeheartedly welcomed during his first visit to Nepal in 2014.
“However, Nepali have never failed to speak on their national issues, though manyatimes Indian policymakers have failed to understand them or they have just ignored them. However, after the 2015 blockade, the situation has not been in favour of India. There are now very strong voices against India. Hence, we now see such strong voices on the border dispute,” said Jaiswal.
This pattern of disregarding Nepali concerns is also reflected in the Indian reluctance on acting on the Eminent Persons Group’s report. Consisting of four members each from both the countries, the Group was constituted after Modi’s 2014 visit to Nepal, and was mandated with a review of the bilateral relationship. The report has been finalised but it continues to be in pendency with the Indian Prime Minister’s Office.
Pramod Jaiswal said the delay in acting on the report is without any valid reason.
“As per the norms, the Indian government has to accept it and share with the Nepali government. However, it has been reluctant to accept it. There might be certain clauses in the report that might not be acceptable to one or both the parties. The two governments should discuss those clauses or open the report for a public debate.
“Actually, it does not show a lack of seriousness on part of the Indian government but a lack of ways to deal with issues because if the Indian government likes the report, it can accept it, and, if not, it can open it for debate among the people of both the countries.”
Sachchidanand Mishra highlighted that Nepal has requested high-level talks regarding border disputes for some time now but India has not given time.
“Now it’s a pandemic, so the meeting is understandably off indefinitely, but it was not happening before the pandemic as well. The best case scenario would be to have a meeting as soon as the pandemic normalises,” said Mishra.
Jaiswal also suggested holding a foreign minister-level dialogue at the earliest.
Jaiswal said, “Both sides should sit together and resolve the issue through dialogue. Both sides can exchange their maps, get those studied by their border experts and resolve the dispute amicably. There are strong governments in both the countries and, at the same time, both have cordial relations.
“Hence, resolving India-Nepal border issues is not as complicated as the border issues between India and China or India and Pakistan.”
While saner voices in New Delhi need to ask Gen. Naravane to not go beyond his mandate and to not wade into the troubled waters of Mahakali, it is indeed true that the dispute is taking place in the shadows of China. Nepal has indeed moved closer to China over the years. But that is also New Delhi’s own doing in ways more than one.
The organiser of track two exchanges quoted earlier in the story said that while Narendra Modi is asking India to be “aatmnirbhar” (self reliant) now in 2020, he told Nepal to be “aatmnirbhar” way back in 2015 with the blockade.
The organiser said, “It was the 2015 blockade that was the last nail in the coffin. Nepal moved ahead with signing agreements with China to reduce its dependency on India. The Indian misconduct in the episode helped China to the extent that one wonders if Indian foreign ministry mandarins were working for China!
“I am afraid self-righteous bureaucrats may again suggest something like the 2015 blockade to teach Nepal a lesson because they can do anything!”
It’s not that India has not amended the direction of its relationship with Nepal. New Delhi has gone from being “partisans” (supporting a particular political group) to being “conciliators” (who engage with all the groups and favour no particular group) in Nepal, particularly since the victory of the combined strength of KP Sharma Oli and Pushp Kamal Dahal “Prachand” against the Nepali Congress. Lessons seemed to have been learnt from 2015 when New Delhi backed Madhesis against the hills’ ruling class and got adverse results.
So can there again be a fix for the present crisis? As Jaiswal said, dialogues hold the key to the solution.
There is still enough closeness to be leveraged, but how long will that closeness last if New Delhi keeps pushing dialogue or a review of the bilateral relationship? One cannot say. So for the sake of preventing further embarrassment and tensions in the bilateral relations, New Delhi needs to respect Nepal’s call for dialogue and to respect their own commitment to reviewing the bilateral relationship by accepting the EPG report.
For their part, the Nepali government may also need to be cautious when it ups the ante with India, said an observer of Nepal in India, requesting anonymity.
The observer mentioned Oli’s usage of “Indian Virus” and his jibe at the Indian national emblem. Oli had said he wondered whether India subscribed to the physical emblem — the lions — “simhaev jayate” (lion prevails) or “satyamev jayate” (truth alone prevails).
The observer said, “These are very fiery statements from the Nepali prime minister that may shrink the room for negotiations. While it is not correct for COAS [Chief of the Army Staff] to comment on Nepal, it is not a secret that Nepali actions are in Chinese interests, whether the Nepali intention is so or not.
“It is not a secret that the Nepali leadership is under the Chinese influence. It’s not even covert. The Chinese ambassador meets and advises Nepali politicians publicly. Now such comments, about taking back land “at any cost” or about the “Indian Virus”, are either populist, and Oli is riding the country’s anti-India wave as he did after the 2015 blockade, or he is trying to please the Chinese and join their efforts to tackle India.”
“It is a common belief that China facilitated the merger of Oli and Prachanda. Oli’s closeness to China has also not been hidden from anyone. But Oli should know he cannot go too much into the Chinese orbit, because he should know that while he can always negotiate with New Delhi, how will he negotiate with the Dragon? There is no position of strength there.
“In negotiating with Delhi, the possibility of Nepal tilting towards China gives Nepal a position of strength. There is no such strength in dealing with China. Also, Oli is smart enough to see what happens to countries when they fully get into the Chinese orbit. I’m sure he is aware of the likes of Sri Lanka, Maldives, or India’s old friend Pakistan.”
So what is Oli’s endgame? The observer said Oli wants the best deal with New Delhi and Beijing.
“He wants to get the best deal from India,” the observer said, adding, “New Delhi too should get the best deal with Oli, a deal based on mutual respect in which both countries are equals — no big brother-younger brother nonsense.”
Kathmandu can have a deal with New Delhi, but can it have one with Beijing?
The observer said it’s tricky. “In order to be emancipated from Indian interference, influence, or whichever word you want to use here, Nepali leadership has inched to China. The fear now is that they may push Nepal from being India’s perceived client-state to a Chinese client-state. Contemporary history should tell you being a Chinese client-state is not the best thing.”
Update (0055, 23 May): The story has been updated with some additional comments at the request of one the sources quoted for a better understanding of the situation.
Madhur Sharma is a post-graduate student of journalism at the Indian Institute of Mass Communication, New Delhi, and a graduate in history from the Delhi University. He tweets at @madhur_mrt.
Views of persons quoted in the story are their own and do not necessarily reflect that of the author or the publication.
