Behind India-Nepal relations

By Lok Raj Baral
India-Nepal relations operate at various levels: personal, political, geo-strategic, economic, international, socio- psychological. So person-to-person and back-channel diplomacy become no less significant than other channels, though some of them get structured and continue to work as a framework for bilateral relations. The Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed by the outgoing Rana Prime Minister, Mohan Shamsher and Indian Ambassador CPN Singh in 1950, is an example of a framework which India still thinks valid for the mutual benefits of the peoples of both the countries.
So India's Nepal policy revolves around the Treaty despite the erosion of many of its elements during the course of implementation. But Nepal has no India policy as it neither subscribes to the letter and spirit of the Treaty nor can it propose its abrogation. Almost all Left parties wanted abrogation of the Treaty while out of power, but in power, they want to review it in order to contextualize the Indo-Nepal relations. In their view, it would also put an end to the legacy of old British policy which the rulers of independent India preferred to continue with slight modifications.
In fact, the 1950 Treaty was concluded as a response to the presence of communist China in Tibet. Any Nepali ruler could have done the same as the Rana did then, though the Rana rulers were under dire need of cultivating India for the survival of the beleaguered regime as well as to insulate Nepal from the threat of communism. Such a context changed soon after the signing of the Treaty with India itself developing a close relationship with China along with the recognition of Tibet as the Autonomous Region in 1954. Nepal too took initiative to establish formal diplomatic relation with China to which India didn't object.
Later, in the wake of strained relations developing between China and India in the early 1960s, Nepal came closer to China in order to avert any perceived or real threats emanating from the South. India didn't recognize King Birendra's peace zone proposal to declare Nepal a zone of peace maintaining that it was vague asking Nepal which country posed a threat to its security. In India's interpretation, it was indirect approach to undercutting the spirit of the 1950 Treaty maintaining that the Treaty had permanency in maintaining Indo-Nepal relations. However, the Nepali power elite have all along been evasive on the issue but at the same time curse the Treaty for all ills that Nepal suffers today. Such conclusions are often drawn without studying thoroughly the actual effects of the Treaty on Nepal's overall underdevelopment.
It seems that the emerging political dynamics of Nepal has, of late, introduced certain degree of maturity in elite behaviors in both the countries, recognizing the commonality of interest and mutual interdependence. And in the process, India's role in Nepal is being studied with greater objectivity and understanding. Old emotions are being died down; adjustment of policies is underway; forces branded as anti-Indian are turning into friends, who are intent on coping with changes. The Maoist metamorphosis is the latest example for putting a positive impact on the emerging pattern of relationship.
India's role in facilitating the peace process by encouraging the Maoists to transform their role into multiparty mainstream politics and its positive response to the Maoist emergence as a powerful force in Nepali politics suggests that India does not dictate its terms on making political equation. Its preference to retain constitutional monarchy changed soon following the turn of events during the course of the movement in 2006 and later after the emergence of the Maoist party as the principal player in Nepali politics. Even the so-called monarchist lobbies in India seem to reconcile to the qualitative change that is underway in Nepal.
Perhaps the spectacular electoral gains of the Maoists and the latter's commitment to pluralist democracy might have prompted them to accept the new political realities. The transformation of the Maoists into competitive system and their bonhomie with India is a positive development for India. It has helped to falsify the claim that the Maoists in Nepal and the Indian Naxalites were working in tandem by creating a corridor from Nepal to Andhra Pradesh in India. So any Maoist transformation from insurgency to peaceful democratic path is salutary development in South Asia.
It is also a triumph of democracy regardless of the declining influence of the so-called democratic parties. If the present churning trends of politics is not properly understood and adjustments made accordingly by the parties, they would also be overtaken by the new forces. And India, despite its ambivalent attitude on the unfolding events and trends (during the movement in particular), has eventually coped with the new changes in Nepal.
How Indian changed position on the two pillar policy (constitutional monarchy and multiparty system) has had been able to create conducive environment for taking Indo-Nepal relations to a new height has been stated by the Maoist leader Prachanda himself during the course of an interview granted to a senior Indian journalist recently. He says: "Fortunately, the 19-day andolan led the GOI [Government of India] to clarify it would respect the people's verdict, even if this was for a republic. That was historically a very big change in Delhi's policy. And the 12-point understanding represented an equally big change in the Maoists position and attitude".
The emergence of the new national and regional parties in Nepal has also added a new dimension to Indo-Nepal relations. On the one hand, India needs to be cautious of not offending its constituencies that range from national parties to the regional groupings of the Tarai, while on the other, its delicate balance is also essential for not jeopardizing Nepal's national unity and territorial integrity for its own security. Its vital national interests can be protected only by discouraging fragmentary trends in Nepal. To the credit of Madhesi leaders of Nepal, Nepal's independence and sovereignty has been ensured. It is also up to the non-Madhesi political actors to address the genuine demands of the Madhesi people so that the great enterprise of nation-state building could be undertaken without any hindrance.
Indo-Nepal relation has certain characteristics to be endurable despite tumultuous changes that take place internally and externally. Many think that the 1950 Treaty is the main villain for straining India-Nepal and hence its abrogation is essential. Symbolically and even theoretically, such mutual security and economic arrangements are negation of many classical definitions of independent nation state but realistically, no states exist without interdependence.
Taking India-Nepal relations in their entirety, it can be said that even if treaties are abrogated or new treaties concluded, the basic spirit of India-Nepal relations remain the same. If the 1950 Treaty would have been replaced or abrogated as Bangladesh did after twenty years, much noise made against its continuation would have already been silenced. What Nepalis need more is internal cohesion, development, peace and democratic stability.(Kantipuronline)