Bangladesh-Nepal

Nepal: Krishna’s visit and anti-Indianism

The anti-India sentiment in Nepal is a by-product of one or the other forms of authoritarianism in the country. In other words, anti-Indianism has by-and-large been popularized by authoritarian regimes so that they could avoid the larger political objectives of democracy and political transformation. And this sentiment has invariably been used as a bargaining chip to get Indian support.

Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna visited Nepal from April 21 to 23, 2011. It was his second visit to Kathmandu in less than a year. He met President Dr. Ram Baran Yadav and Prime Minister Jhala Nath Khanal, and held delegation level talks with Deputy Prime Minister Bharat Mohan Adhikari, who is also Nepal’s finance minister. The Indian leader had one-on-one meetings with leaders across the political spectrum including the Maoist supremo Pushpa Kamal Dahal, senior UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal, who is a former Prime Minister, Nepali Congress chief Sushil Koirala, and leaders of Madhesi parties.

Though Chinese army chief preceded the Indian minister to Kathmandu, he was the first high level foreign dignitary received by the Maoist-UML coalition government led by Jhala Nath Khanal, which has been projected in India and elsewhere as anti-India and pro-China. Generally such visits are seen as routine expressions of goodwill to the new government in a neighbouring country which has a ‘special’ historical relationship.

But Krishna’s was anything but a normal visit. It was, in fact, unique in many respects. It is because India put forward its genuine concerns with the Nepalese leaders in an open and bold manner. Also for the first time in the India-Nepal bilateral history, India went public with all the concerns the External Affairs Minister had articulated with his hosts through its official website. By so doing, India has introduced transparency in bilateral relations. It is for the Nepalese leadership to pick up the ‘open and strong’ message, and deliberate on how to address Indian security concern.

India’s concerns are primarily related to the open border the two countries share, and the smuggling into India of fake Indian currency notes through Nepal. The revised Extradition Treaty and the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), which have been in the works for over six years, are another area of concern, since, as Krishna said, these treaties would enable ‘better coordination and cooperation between the security agencies of the two countries’. Harassment faced by Indian joint ventures, and attacks on the Indian Ambassador are his other talking points while making it clear that an environment of trust and confidence alone would  attract investment from India and Indian investors, ‘who provide capital and employment opportunities in Nepal’.

NEPALI DEMOCRACY AND ANTI-INDIANISM  

Growing anti-Indianism in Nepal figured prominently in Krishna’s discussions with Prime Minister Jhala Nath Khanal and Maoist Chairperson Prachanda. It was because Indians look at the new dispensation with suspicion and it in turn has something to do with the anti-India posture adopted before and after the government formation by the Maoists, who are the mainstay of the coalition. But fact of the matter is that no government in Nepal can survive with its anti-India and pro-China stance. And without engaging India, neither Nepal’s peace process gets concluded nor does the present regime survive.  It is no surprise, therefore, that after the departure of United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN), India has again found itself in a leadership role in international engagement with Nepal.

If the approach of the Nepalese leadership is deconstructed, every politician in Nepal wants to know India’s position before discussing and deciding on any matter. There is a kind of race amongst the Nepalese leaders to visit India first. Going by present indications, both Maoist Chairman and the Prime Minister Khanal want to be the first in India on a formal visit. For this purpose, Dahal has reportedly taken recourse to back channels with the help of an Indian leader. In the past, he used to go to London or Singapore to meet Indian officials. On his part, Khanal is keen to make India his first overseas stop as Prime Minister of Nepal. Does all this make the present Nepalese political leadership by-and-large of pro-India? Well…

It is true that the Nepalese civil society and the common people have been influenced by the very notion of anti-Indianism. If anything goes awry from the Indian side which affects Nepal, there are severe protests in Nepal. But there would be no protest in Nepal if similar things happen because of other powers including China. The obvious question is why India gets singled out. It is a complex question with no short answer.  There is no gain saying however that since democracy and political reform are the major components of India’s policy towards Nepal since India’s independence, the anti-India sentiment is just a by-product of one or the other forms of authoritarianism in the country.

In other words, anti-Indianism in Nepal has by-and-large been popularised by authoritarian regimes so that they could avoid the larger political objectives of democracy and political transformation. And this sentiment is nothing new, but has invariably been used as a bargaining chip to get Indian support.

The anti-Indianism project was started by the Rana regime once leadership of independent India suggested to them to give up their absolute hold on power and initiate political reform. King Mahendra also fell back upon anti-Indianism after his 1960 coup d’état which was condemned by Nehru. The Maoists followed the Mahendra line and pump primed anti-Indianism twice: first during the "People’s War" phase and second since they were ousted from the government in 2009. It can be argued that the Maoists started criticising India, once the latter suggested to them to implement the past agreements aimed at ushering in democracy.

What is interesting is that it was King Mahendra who had signed an agreement related to strategic issues in 1965 once India showed its soft corner towards his regime. Similarly, Maoists agreed to give the facilitator’s role to India in 2005 once they realised India’s soft corner towards them. Also, the Maoists earnestly sought India’s mediation before Prachanda resigned from the post of the Prime Minister. There are reports that Prachanda requested Krishna to help in the Maoists once again.

The short point is that the Maoist anti-India posture should not be seen as an intention to drift away from India but be perceived as the strategy to attract India’s attention and seek its favours. Going by this prognosis, India today is in a ‘favourable’ position. Using the advantage in a transparent manner could help Delhi to decreasing anti-Indianism in Nepal, and at the same time articulate its interests clearly at a global level.

How should India go about its task in Nepal?

Well, it has to change its modus operandi and return to its practices of the Nehruvian era. How?

Rather than inviting pro-royalists, who have no popular support, or meeting Nepalese Maoist leaders in London and Singapore, India should have the dialogue not one-to-one with a few but across the board, in general, with the leaders of major political parties on Delhi’s basic concerns which are democracy and peace in Nepal. So, such a dialogue would be quite helpful for India to decrease anti-Indianism. Simultaneously, India should go public as to why and under what conditions it had facilitated the 12-point agreement which opened the doors for the Maoists to enter the mainstream.

Nepali Maoist party and its secret deal with India will be exposed by such a dialogue globally where the Maoists still pretend to be anti-Indian, but pro-peace and “pro-social change”. Moreover, people of Nepal will come to know the real Indian interests and would be happy to relate it with their own craving for peace and democracy.

Till today, the Nepalese know only about Indian interests indirectly since the dialogue between India and Nepal takes place on one-to-one basis or in a clandestine manner. If there are open dialogues amongst major political leaders from both sides, it would be more fruitful for a transparent policy. Long years ago, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru used to have dialogues with Nepali political leaders on India’s concerns. Because he was genuinely concerned about the real Nepal issue. Now after so many decades, the Krishna visit appears to have faciliated transparency in Indias’s Nepal policy vis-à-vis Nepal’s India policy. An important step it is if not a new milestone in the India-Nepalese ties.

– By Uddhab Pd. Pyakurel
  The author is preparing for his PhD at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

Sharing:

Your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *