India-Nepal ties must be dominated by opportunities of future, not frustrations of past
The Indian Express
Dated: June 10, 2020
By: Dinesh Bhattarai
The inauguration of the “new road to Mansarovar” on May 8 in the
midst of a global pandemic by India’s defence minister, Rajnath Singh,
has strained the relations between Nepal and India. A section of the road
passes through the territory of Nepal and links with the Tibetan Autonomous
Region of China through the Lipu Lekh pass in Nepal.
The 1816 Sugauli Treaty between Nepal and British India placed
all the territories east of the Kali (Mahakali) river, including Limpiyadhura,
Kalapani and Lipu Lekh at the northwestern front of Nepal, on its side. The
borders of Nepal, India and China intersect in this area. Given the situation
in 1961, Nepal and China fixed pillar number one at Tinker pass with the
understanding that pillar number zero (the tri-junction of Nepal, India, and
China) would be fixed later. Lipu Lekh pass is 4 km northwest and Limpiyadhura
53 km west of Tinker pass.
The dispute
over the Kalapani area has spanned the last seven decades. The issue of Indian
presence in the area came to the frontline of Nepali politics after the advent
of democracy in 1990. Since that time, Nepal has been raising this issue with
India at prime ministerial levels.
Both Nepal and India have recognised it as an outstanding border
issue requiring an optimal resolution. In August 2014, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi became
the first Indian Prime Minister to visit Nepal in 17 years, Nepal’s Prime
Minister Sushil Koirala raised this issue again. The two prime ministers agreed
to resolve the issue on a priority basis and directed their foreign secretaries
“to work on the outstanding boundary issues including Kalapani and Susta”.
In a 45-minute speech to Nepal’s Constituent Assembly, Prime
Minister Modi “touched the hearts and minds of all the Nepalese people”. He
erased many long-standing misperceptions about India and laid “the foundation
for new relationship” between the two countries.
However, this
euphoria took no time to evaporate. There was virtually no progress on the
ground. In May 2015, Prime Minister Modi visited China, and the two countries
agreed to “enhance border areas cooperation” and “transform the border into a
bridge of cooperation and exchanges, at …Lipu Lekh pass”. The May 2015
agreement is a broad one compared to the 1954 India-China agreement “on trade
and intercourse between Tibet Region of China and India”, which mentions Lipu
Lekh pass as one of the six passes “through which traders and pilgrims of both
countries may travel”.
Nepal protested against the inclusion of its territory, Lipu
Lekh, in the joint statement without its consent and demanded that the two
countries make necessary corrections to reflect the ground realities. The
protest was ignored. This is a flagrant violation of the principle of “sovereign
equality of all states”.
Welcoming the improved relations between India and China and
their greater cooperation as a development of great international significance,
Nepal stands ready to facilitate connectivity between its two neighbours while also
demanding that they “respect its core concerns of sovereignty and territorial
integrity”.
Nepal
published a new map including Limpiyadhura, Kalapani and Lipu Lekh. The chief
of the Indian Army described Nepal’s protests as triggered at the “behest of someone”,
widely considered to be alluding to China. This is an insult to Nepali people
who are fiercely proud of their historic independence. Nepal judges every issue
on its merits without “fear or favour” and takes positions in the supreme
interests of the nation. Nepal’s political parties, despite their ideological
differences, have shown the capacity to forge a consensus in safeguarding the
country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The tone of
Nepal-India relations appears to be dominated by frustrations of the past and
traditional attitudes more than the opportunities of the future. The widening
gap in understanding each other’s concerns has helped feed Nepali nationalism
and create a dense cloud of distrust and suspicion between the two countries.
True friends on either side of the border should not want this to happen.
The gap widened after India chose to impose an economic blockade
in response to Nepal’s sovereign decision to promulgate an inclusive democratic
constitution in September 2015 under the leadership of the Nepali Congress. It
is no secret that the current ruling Communist Party of Nepal made people’s
anger over the blockade its campaign plank during the 2017 general election ,
while projecting the NC as pro-Indian.
Nepal-India relations are deep, wide-ranging, and unique, but
also fraught with complexities. Much of the complexity stems from the fact that
the political leadership handles only a small part of this very important
bilateral relationship. India as a big neighbour is rarely seen grasping the
psychological dimensions of the relationship. Officials handling these
multifaceted relations may momentarily influence the atmospherics but they
rarely touch the core of these relations, let alone reorient or transform them
in the rapidly changing context.
This is manifest in the deferring of substantive conversations
on the outstanding boundary issue for decades.
The foreign secretary level
mechanism has not met even once to discuss the border issue since its
formation. There are over three dozen bilateral mechanisms between Nepal and
India to engage at various levels. The meetings of these mechanisms are rarely
regular.
Geography,
history, and economy make Nepal and India natural partners, sharing vital
interest in each other’s freedom, integrity, dignity, security and progress.
People-to-people relations are unique strengths of bilateral relations. Prime
Minister Jawaharlal Nehru told the Indian
Parliament in 1950, “…we desire above all a strong and progressive, independent
Nepal… our chief need, not only our need but also the world’s need is peace and
stability in Nepal at present”.
Prime Minister Modi in 2014 told Nepal’s Constituent Assembly,
“How can India be happy if Nepal is unhappy?” Nepal is unhappy with the
developments at the border. Yet, the two countries who sit so close to each
other are far from having solution-oriented dialogues, which are perceived to
be an indispensable part of the “neighbourhood first” policy.
The border
dispute looks minor, but allowing it to fester is likely to sow the seeds of
immense competition and intense rivalry in the sensitive Himalayan frontier
with far-reaching geopolitical implications. Nepal wants to prosper as an
independent and sovereign state and be helpful to its neighbours, emerging as
the main pillar of a world order that is struggling to be born, and remain
productively and constructively engaged with the wider international community.
Comments
Post a Comment