Why India-Nepal relationship faces a tumultuous time
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was in a jolly mood when he returned home after participating in the fourth summit of the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) held in Kathmandu on August 30-31.
He was still in event mode — without sensing the trouble that was looming large just before the BIMSTEC Members’ Joint Military Drill planned in Pune.
As understood, the key reasons that let the euphoria linger for a little while included the following: a) BIMSTEC took some key decisions positioning itself as an alternative to SAARC; b) It was Modi’s third meeting with Nepal's Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli in the short span of four months, and during his latest visit to Kathmandu, the two countries signed a railway agreement. With China’s consistent efforts to play the greater role on major infrastructure projects in Nepal, including in railways and airports, the railway agreement on the feasibility study for the Birgunj-Kathmandu line was momentarily relaxing.
So, for Modi’s own self-assessment, his visit was mixed in terms of bilateral and multilateral engagements. Perceptions also emerged in Kathmandu and New Delhi that relations between Oli and Modi had improved a bit. This sudden change in public perception came with steps taken by India for the removal of the Indian Embassy's temporary office located in Biratnagar, assurances of more air routes to Nepal, a joint study to resolve the issues of floods and inundations in border areas and the finalisation of a report by the Nepal-India Eminent Persons Group (EPG) which mandated suggesting ways to reshape the bilateral relationship.
(Technically though, these were pending tasks which were attended to of late. Nothing spectacular there!)
Yet, the pleasant scenario suddenly changed when the proposed joint military drill of BIMSTEC countries was marred in controversy. Nepal stayed away from the drill just two days before the scheduled date — and sent a shock wave to New Delhi by announcing its plan to go ahead with a joint military exercise with China.
Though the military drill was finalised three months ago, it was broadly observed that Modi’s address in Kathmandu created a ripple in the political spectrum. Ruling and opposition leaders, media, civil society and experts started to criticise the military drill, stating that it was beyond the objectives of BIMSTEC that stood for regional strategic and trade integration, and an attempt to derail BIMSTEC from its key aim. Also, it was considered that such a move could adversely impact the possibilities of improving bilateral ties among countries in South Asia.
Oli tried to pacify the dissatisfaction expressed from various quarters.
While addressing Parliament, he also defended the proposed Nepal-China joint drill, saying “This (military exercise) is targeted at increasing the capacity of armies. We will not enter into any kind of military pact with any country or regional organisations, and we do not believe in military pacts too.” Apparently, he failed to convince his party leaders and others. Foreign policy experts argued that such a military drill would go specifically against the basic principles of Nepal’s foreign policy, i.e., non-alignment.
The last-minute decision to stay away from the BIMSTEC military drill apparently sent Modi’s foreign policy handlers into panic as preparations for holding the drill were completed and well-publicised. Modi had mentioned the military drill in his opening speech during the BIMSTEC Conclave at Kathmandu — thus, it was a big deal.
Addressing a press conference after the conclusion of the military drill, Indian Army chief Bipin Rawat expressed dissatisfaction with Nepal and Bhutan for boycotting the drill. He said countries like Nepal and Bhutan cannot delink themselves from India as they are more inclined towards India because of geography.
Earlier, Indian Ambassador to Nepal, Manjeev Singh Puri, also expressed dissatisfaction on the same issue with Nepal’s new Army chief.
The statements were strong — but didn’t find traction as Nepal was steadfast with its plan and it sent clear signals that the move made was principled rather than influenced through any hidden interest.
When Nepal decided not to participate in the drill, three members of the Nepal Army were already traveling in India for ground observations. The ruling administration in Kathmandu decided to keep them there as "observers" of the drill to give a message that there is not a total boycott. The trip of a 30-member team which was all set to go India was cancelled though, following instructions reportedly from Nepal's PMO. Ironically, both countries didn’t officially engage with each other on the matter.
Not only the military drill, but some other developments are also pushing India a step back on Nepal.
Soon after the BIMSTEC Summit, Nepal and China finalised the protocol of Transit & Transport Treaty between the two countries signed in 2016. Significantly, the Treaty was signed during this tumultuous phase that ended Nepal’s sole dependence on India for vital access to ports.
As of now, Nepal relies heavily on India for overland trade and the supply of essential goods, including fuel and cooking gas. Kolkata Port has been the lifeline so far but in today's changed time, now it may face stiff competition given Kathmandu’s increasing connections with Beijing. Noticeably, China managed to route over $8 billion in investments in Nepal last year, leaving India way behind as the country’s largest foreigner investor.
These events have been accompanied by the India visit of Nepal’s former prime minister and Communist Party of Nepal (CPN) co-chairman, Pushpa Kamal Dahal "Prachanda". He was invited by Modi for an official visit. After the party unification, Prachanda has been both a rival and a close aide of Oli. In this context, Oli and his leaders are clearly wondering why India gave so much importance to Prachanda.
During his stay in New Delhi, Prachanda met PM Modi, Minister for External Affairs Sushma Swaraj and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. He also addressed some programs organised by Indian think-tanks. Barring the protocol, Prachanda’s time in New Delhi was almost like the visit of a serving prime minister. Neither was he shy in giving smoke signals to Oli that he is not living an existence that detaches him from the internal politics of Nepal — and the possibility of holding power again. The strong reflections came through via his close interactions with the influencers who make or shake India-Nepal bilateral ties.
In the interviews given to the media in New Delhi, Prachanda made it clear that there has been an understanding between him and Oli about the power-sharing modality of 2.5 years for each. Prachanda clearly hinted that either he will be full-fledged party president or prime minister after 2.5 years. A few Oli loyalists from the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) criticised Prachanda’s statement, saying that it was not necessary to speak about party matters in India.
There are perceptions in Kathmandu that Prachanda wants to secure his position after Oli’s 2.5 years at the helm — and for that, he could seek covert support from India.
After his India visit, Prachanda visited China but received a cold shoulder from Beijing. In contrast to the royal treatment he received in New Delhi, his Beijing visit proved not successful at making headlines in the Chinese newspapers. Both the Chinese President and Prime Minister did not meet him in Beijing. Dahal returned home after meeting with the Vice President — and talking more of "peace" than "ideology".
All these developments have been keenly watched by foreign policy observers.
In the last six months, Oli and Modi have taken several measures to build an environment of trust at the top political level — but with a lack of capacity to follow on what was promised from both sides, not much could come out positively.
In now downplaying what evidently is a wave of turmoil between India and Nepal, both Modi and Oli are doing a great disservice to the bilateral ties and South Asia’s strategic balance. In relying on directionless policies and giving undue importance to egos, the serving leaderships are scripting a plot that will be damaging for both these countries which otherwise share open borders and have common interests.