There is only one way to make sense of Nepal's unexpected appearance in the joint EU-India statement issued on March 30th. Despite its claim to global leadership, India is not even confident it can deal with a small Nepal, supposedly its closest friend, on its own. It is also strange that of all countries India should look to train the world's attention on Nepal. For most of the past 70-odd years since its independence, it has done everything to minimize the role of international actors here. This was why it was skeptical about allowing the UN to monitor Maoist combatants and arms following the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement. When the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) was finally set up in 2007, against India's wishes, it worked tirelessly to boot it out. It succeeded in doing so in 2011.India's persistent opposition was also behind the hasty exit from Nepal in 2012 of UN's human rights monitor, OHCHR. Besides UN agencies, India also remains wary of the INGOs that are active in Nepal, which, in its belief, are doing the bidding of western countries in its traditional 'backyard'.
But of late India has been trying to do just the opposite: inviting the world's attention on Nepal. According to the aforementioned joint statement, the EU and India both "agreed on the need for a lasting and inclusive constitutional settlement in Nepal that will address the remaining Constitutional issues in a time bound manner."
Fair in love
The question here is not if the Nepali constitution is inclusive (and there are deficiencies), or if Nepal is committed to addressing outstanding issues. These, in any case, are internal matters for Nepal. The bigger issue is regarding the intent of India. What, exactly, was it trying to achieve by getting the EU to add the Nepal clause? Since both India and the EU have embassies in Nepal, why couldn't their displeasures over the new constitution, if any, have been conveyed through their Nepal-based envoys?
Last November, during the UN's universal periodic human rights review in Geneva, India had out of the blue asked Nepal to ensure "effective functioning of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and full implementation of its recommendations, including prosecution of those responsible for violent insurgency." There was no doubting the intended target of this directive. UCPN (Maoist) party and its chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal had, against the wishes of the Indian establishment, expedited the constitutional process. New Delhi, it appeared, wanted to show Dahal that if he was not ready to toe India's line, he could be indicted for war crimes any time—even if it results in the unraveling of the peace process that was shepherded by India from the start.
Also in November, 2015, India had, in another joint statement with the UK, highlighted the need for "inclusive constitutional settlement in Nepal".
Then, in the next universal human rights review session in March, 2016, India as "a principal donor in global support for Nepal in post-earthquake reconstruction" urged a "strong national consensus in Nepal in its political and development agendas." Since we are throwing money at you, India seemed to be saying to Nepal, you must do as we please.
All these are indications of the deep insecurities of India which continues to treat its neighbors much like its former colonial masters. These moves also suggest that India is constantly trying to cook up excuses to meddle in Nepal. So even though the four-and-a-half-month-long blockade is now a thing of the past, no one should be surprised if in the days ahead there are more much punitive measures from India on the old pretext of protesting against continued marginalization of the Madheshis.
Latte liberals
But it also indicates another worrying trend for Nepal: the rest of the world, it appears, is increasingly comfortable with outsourcing their Nepal policy to India. Part of the reason is strategic. The US and members of the European Union believe that democratic India must be the undisputed leader in the South Asian region to check the growing ambitions of communist China. This is why the EU and India have now agreed to "step up foreign policy and security cooperation," as per the joint EU-India statement.
As I wrote in one of my previous columns (Uncle Sam's Cabin, Dec 2, 2015), the Americans have also come to increasingly rely on India to do the right thing in Nepal. The first time the US publicly accepted that they followed India's lead in Nepal was in 2005, following King Gyanendra's February 1st coup. Talking to Indian reporters on February 22nd, David C Mulford, American ambassador to India at the time, had said the US wanted India to play a "leading role" in the process of restoration of democracy in Nepal. America seems to understand Indian anxieties over the presence of 'third powers' in Nepal. The Americans, like the Europeans, also strongly believe that India rather than China should set the agenda in South Asia.
Unfortunately, in great-power politics, there is very little small countries like Nepal can do to protect their interests. This does not, however, imply that Nepal is helpless. To start with it could be clearer about its foreign policy priorities. Notions like 'peaceful coexistence' and 'Panchasheel' that were devised during the Cold War have become meaningless. Time has come to completely rewrite our foreign policy book: How do we diversify away from India while also assuring India that Nepal is keenly aware of its sensitivities? How do we convince the Chinese that we are serious about long-term engagement? How do we enhance our third-country trade, both through India and China? How do we utilize multilateral institutions like the UN and the EU to our benefit?
Nepal should be clear about these things. Then it must develop robust foreign policy mechanisms to relentlessly pursue these objectives. This will also ensure the continuity of policies from one government to the next, adding to our credibility. For the vastly different foreign policy goals pursued by constantly changing governments in Nepal frustrate our friends abroad. During his recent state visit to China, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli was thus repeatedly told of how hard it had become for China to trust Nepali leaders who seldom follow through on their words.
When we seem happy to operate in this foreign policy vacuum, why feign surprise when it is the foreign powers that set the agenda for us? India, China, the EU, the US—each is trying to protect its interests in Nepal. If we continue to trust them to do the right thing in Nepal, one day we may find that all the important decisions have already been made for us.
Twitter: @biswasktm
Related story
Revised interest rate corridor system introduced
