Round The World

New Delhi, 19 May 2016

Fresh Turmoil In Nepal

IS THERE AN INDIA CONNECTION?

By Amrita Banerjee

School of International Studies, JNU, New Delhi

The recall of Nepal’s Ambassador in Delhi Deep Kumar Upadhyaya’s due to differences between the Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and him over cancellation of its President's visit to India has resulted in yet another tumultuous scenario in Kathmandu.

Remember, President Bidya Bhandari was to arrive in India for a five-day maiden visit on 9 May  with a trip to the Ujjain Kumbh Mela but it was cancelled at the 11th hour; barely 72 hours before her departure for Delhi.

Though no reason was assigned for cancellation of the trip, it was believed to indicate Nepal’s unhappiness with India over the latter’s alleged meddling in the Himalayan nation’s internal affairs. Further, Upadhyay was blamed for being a part of the conspiracy hatched by Deuba with the Indian authorities to topple the Government, prop up the Madhes-based Parties and being close to Indian Ambassador Ranjit Rai.

Despite, Kathmandu dismissing rumors of expelling Indian envoy Ranjit Rae as “baseless”, that too aimed at damaging bilateral ties; realistically, a lot of things hang in limbo.

Nepal appears, once again, to be on the brink of a leadership change. The past few days have seen frenetic activity, driven by Maoist leader Prachanda’s desire to oust the Prime Minister just months after he took charge.

While the attempt has been stalled for the moment, it might be only a matter of time before the number-crunchers get to work to forge an alternative coalition in the 601-member Parliament. There is a difference of only 24 seats between Oli’s Communist Party of Nepal (UML) and the Nepali Congress. With their 83 seats, the Maoists can always tip the balance.

Undeniably, keeping the confidence of a fragmented Parliament and fractured internal politics were always going to be a challenge for Oli. But that he finds himself embattled so early in his tenure is also the result of failing to deliver on three important promises.

One, failure to form an equitable Constitution and polity which accommodates the sensitivities of Madhesis, Janjatis and other marginalised groups. Recall, Oli came to power after adoption of a new Constitution but instead of using his political authority to push through necessary amendments, he blamed India for backing the Madhesi agitation and imposing an economic blockade on Nepal. His assurances to Modi during his India visit remain unfulfilled. The Madhesi agitation might have been called off but there is simmering discontent and unrest across the Terai.

Two, in a political uncertain atmosphere and a dysfunctional Government, Nepal’s reconstruction efforts have suffered. The Administration has failed its people entirely on speeding up reconstruction after last year’s earthquake which killed nearly 9,000 people.

Estimates state that only about one per cent of the 770,000 destroyed houses have been reconstructed; millions are living in damaged, unsafe homes or in temporary shanties.

At this rate, another winter might well come and go without children returning to proper schools and without hospitals acquiring facilities to serve Nepal’s most wanting. It is a mystery why Oli’s Government has been so lethargic in drawing up a comprehensive plan to spend the billions of dollars committed by the world community.

Three, Oli has not done enough to reverse the estrangement with India. Even though he has reached out to different groups and invited the Samyukta Loktantrik Madhesi Morcha (SLMM) back for talks after a three-month hiatus, it doesn’t seem enough. Notwithstanding, the strain in ties with India has been prevented from worsening due to conciliatory statements from Dy Prime Minister Kamal Thapa. 

Indeed, India is invariably accused of being an interfering big brother and blamed for any crisis in its neighbouring countries. This occasion too is no exception. Whereby, the last six months have not been favourable for India-Nepal relations due to the following reasons.

New Delhi has criticized Nepal’s Constitution, banded with other countries at the UN Human Rights Council and the European Union to rebuke Kathmandu. Behind the scenes also, PMO and Foreign Ministry officials have expressed their discomfort with Oli’s leadership and his overtures to China.

Besides, Nepal’s streets are abuzz with rumours about a possible Indian involvement in the late Sushil Koirala’s surprise election challenge to Oli last year and of India having a hand in Prachanda’s gambit this month. However, many of these tales have no basis in fact.

Undoubtedly, Oli’s tenure has witnessed a steep downturn in relations with India. Like his coalition partner Prachanda, he has also sought to bolster legitimacy by deliberately stoking nationalist sentiment and blaming India for his problems, both political and economic and flaunting the China card.

Prithvi Narayan Shah who had unified Nepal more than two and a half centuries ago had famously described Nepal “as a yam between two boulders”. Unfortunately, Nepali politicians have taken this description to heart without realising that the 21st century is no longer an age of empires!

Many economists and businessmen who have been looking at investment opportunities in Nepal have been talking of “connectivity” and the advantages which could accrue to Nepal from its “bridge diplomacy”. Yet, Kathmandu’s political leadership continues to be seduced by Shah’s outdated phrase.

Pertinently, after visiting India, Oli undertook a much publicised visit to China in March. Among the slew of agreements signed, the most publicised was that on transit which permits use of Chinese ports for transit of goods to Nepal. Yet one look at a map makes it clear that this cannot change the dictates of geography.

China can fund power generation projects in Nepal and also provide concessional funding for expanding Pokhra’s airport but Beijing will never allow an open border between Nepal and Tibet for visa-free travel!

However, it would be wrong to aver that there has not been any upward movement in bilateral ties. Works for repairing and installing border pillars is going on smoothly and so are the pending meetings of energy secretaries and the Joint Commission on Water Resources.

Nepal is India’s neighbor, a geopolitical reality which cannot be altered. Thus, peaceful neighbourly coexistence is in the interest of both countries. It is high time for Oli’s Government to stop stirring ‘ultra-nationalism’ by dragging India into its internal battles. Instead, he needs to concentrate on speedy reconstruction work and address Constitutional grievances of the Terai region.

On the other side, New Delhi also needs to introspect about why Modi’s “neighbourhood first” policy has backfired in Nepal, after having gotten off to a splendid start when he visited Nepal in 2014 and laid out the contours of the relationship which he wanted to develop.

The need of the hour is to find a Nepal policy which can resurrect the image of India that he had successfully presented: Of a friendly and caring neighbour sensitive to Kathmandu’s concerns and generous in seeking mutually beneficial partnerships.

Clearly, Nepal’s decision to recall its envoy is purely political, Kathmandu must refrain from deflecting blame to external actors for its internal churning. Regardless of this, there is reason enough for New Delhi to quickly adopt a more open and energetic outreach, one which is aimed at the overall progress of the Himalayan republic. ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News and  Feature Alliance)