However, the bond of geography, history, culture and society or the homogeneity of sights and sounds across no-man’s land can’t negate the divide of sovereignty that separates us. That we are two different nations is a reality; but that the respective exercises of our sovereignty often gives birth to unwarranted mistrust and disagreements among us is unfortunate. Nation-states elsewhere in 21st century live and work together even amidst sharp differences by managing, minimizing or deferring their disagreements; but we draw out or fuel our differences in the name of ‘nationalism’ and ‘security concerns’. For example, a large section of power-elite in Delhi has always been unduly skeptic of Nepal’s normal and neighborly relations with China. On the other side, Nepali politicians, especially the radical communists are always hell-bent to politicize the Nepal-India treaty of 1950.
It’s true that two out of the ten clauses (#5 &7) of the treaty are not fully compatible with our sovereign aspirations and interests; but in practice, those two clauses have ceased to be effective by mutual agreement, thus no need to politicize. The communists maintain silence when it comes to the immense benefits and convenience the treaty brings to millions and millions. That is why, for fear of public backlash they don’t intend to quash the accord and as such hardly talk about an alternate arrangement. But for the consumption of cadres they parrot the pact as anti-national and unequal and repeatedly make calls to scrap it. Double talks like those hve severely hindered the development of our nation including the development of hydro-power which very much depends on the cooperation with the Indian side.
International law defines all sovereign nations as equals; however, in subtle diplomacy and realpolitik it is power that counts, not parity. Sheer asymmetry in territory, population, military might and economy and dependence for passage to the sea puts Nepal on an unequal footing vis-à-vis India. India sees this as Nepal’s dependant status on it; Nepal views the Indian perception as dangerous to its independence. Thus ensuring Indian support and cooperation without compromising on nation’s independence is the most uphill task of our foreign policy and governance. Unfortunately our politicians and policymakers have performed dismally in this issue; their handling of the more enlightened and better educated counterparts of a bigger, mightier, more developed and pervasive neighbor has been miserably poor. Either they kowtow to Indian pressures or seek Indian favor for their lowly personal and political gains. The public bashing of India is intended to cover their wrongdoings or shortcomings and to demonstrate their patriotism and nationalism.
India believes that it has legitimate security stakes in Nepal; and some of its concerns are genuine. The Indian Airlines plane hijack in 1999 (from Kathmandu to Kandahar) or the every now and then arrests of Pakistani nationals with counterfeit Indian currencies are cases in point. However, majority of its worries are the fabrications of a sensationalist media, paranoia of Delhi-ite security pundits and fictional reports of a bureaucratic RAW.
Nepal need not be unduly worried for its survival; for, this is not 20th century, and Nepal is not Sikkim either. Thanks to the builders of the nation that range from Prithvi Narayan Shah to the more contemporary ones like King Mahendra and B P Koirala our nationhood and identity have taken deep roots both within our soil and beyond; especially since last six decades. The protectorate buffer closed to outside world till 1950s is now a respected, active and high profile member of the family of nations.
Nevertheless, if our politicians keep acting foolishly, history may repeat itself; federal state assemblies may do the job this time what Lendup Dorje and his parliament did last time. When (it is more likely than if) that will happen, who we should blame- Indians or our stupid leaders who are determined to chunk the nation into tiny ethno-lingual or regional pieces?
Hypocrite Nepali politicians believe that any foreign intervention that goes in their favor is patriotic while as the one that goes in favor of their political opponents is anti-national. The Maoists are a typical example of this syndrome. Despite occasional anti-India stunts (like digging trench to ‘fight India’) the latter provided them safe haven for over eight years out of 10 they carried their brutal ‘people’s war’. India bore the strange bed-fellows to use them, especially against Nepal’s monarchy. India lobbied for their accession to power soon after the Constituent Assembly elections, aiming to create a ‘demonstration effect’ on its own rebels. On his part Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal, as soon as he became Prime Minister, announced that his first official visit will be India (implying not China- to please the former). He also sought India’s green signal for the abortive dismissal of the Army Chief and requested Delhi to send a high level envoy to explain his move. When press reporters caught top Maoist brass off guard during their secret visit to Indian Embassy in the middle of the night they admitted that it was their 7th such visit- the honeymoon list is long.
It was only when Maoists tried, in a series of mistakes and misadventures, to play China against India that the latter chose to ‘teach them lesson’. The Indian pressure showed Maoists exit from power; ever since their relationship has remained sour. Maoist’s attempts to mend the relation in private while censuring India in public has only backfired. During past one year India has succeeded, to a large extent, to foil the frantic moves of Maoists to return to power. At the climax of the power struggle, when a hung parliament could not elect the PM for the 3rd time in row- also due to a constitutional lacuna- last week New Delhi sent its special envoy Shyam Sharan- a retired senior diplomat and Nepal specialist - to affect the next round(s) of voting. The emissary was successful in saving Madhesi People’s Rights Forum from (further) splitting, a faction of which was lured by Maoists to vote in favor of their candidate, defying the party line. He also succeeded in bringing, at least temporarily, all four Madhesi parties together, apparently not to vote for the Maoist candidate.
Subsequently, furious and frustrated Maoists have taken up their anti-India stances and stunts to a new height, at least till before their next honeymoon phase starts.
Related story
EU tells British PM Johnson to stop playing 'stupid' Brexit bla...
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
