India as a rising power has been long concerned with security in its northern Himalayan frontier, keeping in view Chinese adventurism in the Himalayas. This is the 'continuity approach' of Indian policy in Nepal, guided by the British 'northern frontier' policy. The British legacy has been adopted by Independent India since 1947 and successive Indian governments have given this policy 'continuity'.I believe this policy will continue to dictate Nepal-India relations, as the India-China security dynamics will remain essentially the same. This is the larger picture that Nepal must understand before setting any lofty goals in relation to India. India's reservations with Nepal's constitution and the ensuing blockade as a reactive step to protect its core constituency in Nepal—the Tarai-Madhesh—is a reflection of its continued policy to ensure that its strategic and security issues are not undermined in federal Nepal.
The de facto blockade has created a deep distrust in Nepal-India relations. Currently, the need is to address the 'trust deficit' in Nepal-India relations. So, instead of taking with him an ambitious 'shopping list', Oli should focus on addressing the 'trust deficit', which is of utmost importance for shared prosperity for Nepal and India. As for Indian interests, an extradition treaty is expected to be one of them. This will, as argued by some Indian strategic thinkers, further help address India's security concerns in Nepal. So we in Nepal need to do proper homework on such a treaty. Security concerns of India have been a recurrent theme of India's Nepal policy, which has been guided by strategic issues relating to external forces using Nepali territory against India. India considers Nepal its second line of defence rather than a security partner, which reflects in its hegemonic attitude. This hegemonic behaviour is seen by Nepal as a major factor that needs to change in order to bridge the 'trust deficit'.
Our leaders had hoped for a change in India's Nepal policy with the coming to power of Narendra Modi, considering that he had personal affection for Nepal. But Modi government has instead chosen a coercive approach. Nepali politicians failed to understand that Indian policy in Nepal is the continuity of past and it will remain guided by Indian national interest. To hope that Prime Minister Oli's India visit will help change Indian policy towards Nepal is utopian. Rather, Oli would be better off just addressing 'trust deficit' in Nepal-India relations. This would be a significant outcome of his visit.
For this, first, PM Oli needs to apprise Indian establishment, especially Modi, on the inclusive nature of the new constitution. Second, Oli should not be guided by 'regime insecurity' and should not try to appease the Indian establishment, resulting in loss of ownership/control of our natural resources. Nor should Oli accede to 'One Madhesh two Pradesh', as it will have serious implications for our territorial integrity. Third, Oli needs to assure Indian establishment that Madheshis would not be marginalized and he should notify that the two constitutional amendments and the discussion on political committee to resolve differences border demarcation within three months is already a significant step toward addressing Madheshi demands.
India needs to be convinced that India's northern border would be secured only by an economically and politically strong Nepal. Any Indian adventurism that might result in anarchy in Nepal will further harm India. Fourth, past agreements signed during Modi's Nepal visit needs to be revisited and a time-bound framework developed for their implementation. This also includes ensuring India's continuous support in post-earthquake reconstruction and rehabilitation. Lastly, Nepal needs to convey that its relation with China is guided by change in global and regional affairs.
Nepal's initiative at signing 'trade and transit treaty' with China should not be perceived as inimical to Indian interest. Oli needs to convey a clear message to the Indian establishment that this is necessitated by Nepal's need to diversify trade and to benefit from China economic powers; notwithstanding that among South Asian countries, India has benefitted the most from China's economic prowess. India should not keep other South Asian states like Nepal from reaping the benefits of China's economic development.
Considering Nepal's geo-strategic location, China will remain a major factor in Nepal-India relations. Oli needs to clearly convey that if there is any fear on Indian side regarding China's adventurism in the Himalayas that might harm Indian interest, Nepal-India-China needs to come together and discuss this through tripartite dialogue. But that would be in the future; first and foremost Oli needs to address the 'trust deficit' created after the imposition of unofficial blockade and resulting rise of anti-India feelings in Nepal.
Checking further deterioration in Nepal-India relations should be the objective of Oli's visit. However, he needs to learn that 'Quiet Diplomacy' may also be the need of the hour. It's not hidden that Nepal's geography is a key determinant of its foreign policy and it would be wise for Oli to use this geo-strategic location to benefit from rise of India and China.
One of the measuring sticks of PM Oli's India visit would be his ability to encourage Prime Minister Modi to finalize Indian representatives in Eminent Personality Group (EPG). This would show that India is serious about improving relations with Nepal under PM Oli. If these goals are not achieved, we might end up witnessing moves for another 'regime change' in Nepal.
The author is an Assistant Professor at Kathmandu School of Law and co-editor of the book Geo-Strategic Challenges to Nepal's Foreign Policy and Way Forward (2015)
Related story
Business ideas matter
