Relations between and among nations are guided by their perception of national interests that can be both manifest and latent. When the gap between the manifest and the latent remains ignored, problems start assuming damaging proportion. At the manifest level, the Indian state wants a stable and a friendly Nepal where the Nepali people should decide the kind of government they want to establish.
Similarly, as a close and friendly neighbor, it is logical for India to expect Nepal to be sensitive to her security issues followed by cooperation in the use of water resources for the benefit of the people of both countries. For Nepal, these Indian objectives do not pose any problems as long as their operational contents at the latent level appreciate the geo-strategic reality of the Nepali state while respecting the sovereignty, economic interests and the sense of dignity and self-respect of the Nepali people. Unfortunately, this has always not been the case and it remains at the root of the problem between the two nations.
At the manifest level, India strongly supported parliamentary democracy in Nepal but it is also a fact that it adopted an attitude of benign neglect to the use of Indian territory by the Nepali Maoists to launch rebellion against a duly elected democratic government. Some prominent Indian leaders were quite open in courting and praising the Nepali Maoist movement. How such a policy was consistent with the security and internal peace in India still remains a mystery unless the whole exercise was to have a shaky government in Nepal that would forever look toward the Indian government for survival even if it meant compromising vital national interests.
Similarly, in the use of water resources, the normal state policy should focus on mutual benefit. However, no operational models of exploiting natural resources for the benefit of the people of both countries based on the principle of equality and mutual sharing of benefits have ever been conceptualized. Thus, there is the specter of indiscriminate building of dams without even consulting Nepal on the Indo-Nepal border that inundates land on the Nepali side. It only goes to expose the hollowness of manifest declarations that stress mutually-beneficial cooperation.
Contradictions of this nature in the manifest and latent contents of foreign policy at many levels have served to create a wall of mistrust between the two nations. It has heightened the perception among Nepalis that a weak and a dependent Nepali state that has to look toward India for survival remains the latent goal of the Indian state. The quite arrogance, ineptitude and indiscretion of the Indian diplomatic establishment in Kathmandu that is becoming increasingly obvious in recent months has only reinforced this sentiment.
By the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, India is poised to become a great power in world economy and politics. However, for success in this direction, it would make sense on the part of the Indian state to be able to take on board the small neighboring countries like Nepal based on the principle of mutual respect and mutual sharing of benefits from trade and the exploitation of the region’s natural resources. This is probably the most effective way that India’s own national interests and regional leadership is assured. It means paying attention to the economics of neighborhood, building complimentaries in trade and investments, promoting regional infrastructure development and natural resource utilization for mutual benefit, developing new political skill in sidestepping the barriers of size asymmetry while promoting new “cooperation triggers” involving the private sector and other stakeholders.
India is the largest and the most powerful and economically vibrant country in the region. It could help create a political atmosphere in the region that allows neighboring countries like Nepal to feel confident in taking part in this new economic transformation. So far, Indian diplomacy seen from Nepali perspective has been projecting contradictory signals that seem to swing from a hegemonistic approach to a cooperative vision without any sense of focus or stability. We need both stability as well as renewal of our relationship so that it leads to a qualitative transformation more in line with the needs and aspirations of our people and our national interests. A foreign policy perspective that still seems to be carrying some baggage from the colonial past needs to be examined.
Harping on cultural proximity alone is no guarantee of good relationship. History is full of examples of nations that share a common civilizational heritage and yet engage in cruel and bitter conflict. The crucial point is that the core components of our national interests do not change but our willingness for renewal and growth should allow us to examine the underlying assumptions of our decisions in the changed context of our time. From a Nepali perspective, India needs to undertake this kind of assessment in its relationship with Nepal at the earliest.
Writer is a former foreign minister of Nepal
prakash_dr@hotmail.com
Related story
Revised interest rate corridor system introduced
