Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The latest round of Indo-Nepalese foreign office consultations were concluded last weekend. Nepalese foreign secretary, Narain Shamsher Thapa, led a four-member delegation to exchange views with Lalit Man Singh, our foreign secretary. This is part of the annual exercise in bilateral consultations which India has with countries it considers important. The significance of the latest round of bilateral talks, given the negative undercurrents that had beset it recently, can hardly be over-emphasised.
Nepalese relations with India are particularly subject to the impulses and pressures of domestic politics in Nepal. The roots of this phenomenon go back to the early 1950s, when India was significantly influential in buttressing the authoritarian rule of the feudal Ranas. This created an apprehensive undercurrent in public opinion about India8217;s potential to interfere in Nepal8217;s domestic affairs. The shared cultural identities between India and Nepal, together with India8217;s size, compounded this apprehension and still constitutes an important ingredient of the ordinary Nepalese8217;s perception of India. There is another factor. Nepal is landlocked and its only easy access to sea and trade routes is through India. This constitutes a dependency on this country which the Nepalese do not relish.
The return of the Bhattarai and Koirala governments in the 1990s generated expectations about a qualitative improvement in Indo-Nepalese relations. But no matter which government is in power, it was subject to continuous pressure from other political parties about succumbing to Indian influence. Consequently, little progress could be made in furthering the relationship. To add to the problem was the constant surfacing of fresh irritants. The agreements on the utilisation of water resources and for hydro-electric projects like the Tanakpur and Mahakali projects have not taken off. Nepal is still upset at India not granting additional transit routes to Bangladesh through its territory. One of Nepal8217;s major demands over the last decade is the one seeking to replace the Indo-Nepalese Treaty of 1950 with a new treaty or, failing this, extensively modifying the old one to address the feeling that it diminishes Nepal8217;s sovereignty.
Nepal8217;s desire to reclaim the Kalapani area by demanding an Indian pull out from here, is also a sore point. Then there is Bhutan8217;s expulsion of a large number of Nepalese from its territory. Nepal would like India to pressurise the Bhutanese government to take back these people. While India did make a general suggestion to Bhutan, it regards the issue as a bilateral onebetween Bhutan and Nepal. The more recent development of the governments of Bhutan and Nepal creating a joint fact finding mechanism to deal with this question is therefore welcome.
As if all this was not enough, the increase in anti-Indian operations by the Pakistan8217;s ISI from Nepal has added another significant and disturbing dimension to Indo-Nepalese relations. The hijacking of the Indian Airlines aircraft from Kathmandu in December 1999 was a manifest indication of such clandestine activity. Pakistani intelligence agencies, in collaboration with anti-Indian elements in Nepal, are active in fomenting anti-Indian feeling in that country as was proved when large-scale anti-Indian agitations broke out in Nepal recently against anti-Nepal remarks allegedly made by Indian film star Hrithik Roshan. This was a successful exercise in psychological and propaganda warfare against India which mercifully did not last long.
It was against this background that the Indo-Nepalese foreign secretaries8217; level talks were held in the last week of January. The agenda of the discussions was rooted in these critical developments. Among the main items which are specific to Indo-Nepal ties were discussions on the revision of the Indo-Nepal Treaty; the issue of Kalapani and the further steps to be taken for the implementation of the Mahakali agreement. Broader issues included developments related to SAARC and the feasibility of sub-regional cooperation. India8217;s security concerns in terms of externally-sponsored subversive activities was an item of special attention. Full details and the trends of discussions and the resulting decisions were not made public. Naturally so, because requirements of transparency have to be tempered with the sensitivity of the issues which impinge directly on the interests of both nations. Indications, however, are that the discussions were marked by a constructive and practical approach.
India is not averse to revising or replacing the 1950 Treaty by a general agreement which governs inter-state relations. But then Nepal should accept that the special relationship and the facilities which presently characterise Indo-Nepalese relations will also become irrelevant if the relationship is to be formalised and replace the special one that had lasted for nearly 50 years. On Kalapani, India has emphasised the legitimacy of its presence in the area and its logic, in historical, legal and strategic terms. On other issues, both sides seem to have agreed to evolve practical solutions, keeping in mind the substantive concerns of each other.
This round of talks, therefore, is significant in the context in which they were held. It is clear that the relationship between the two countries needs to be stabilised in the context of the recent tensions that have marked it. Indian policy makers are conscious of the country8217;s special responsibility for fulfilling this objective but any progress here also depends on Nepal8217;s capacity to respond to India8217;s concerns, especially its security concerns. This can by no means be a one-sided exercise.
This round of Indo-Nepal talks is significant given the recent anti-India agitation in the Himalayan kingdom. Clearly, the ties between the two nationsneed to be stabilised
