So what are we to make of the warmer than expected Chinese welcome extended to Prime Minister KP Oli and more than expected Chinese pledges during his visit? What do Indian reaction to it, India-EU statement on Nepal's constitution and silence of the Western nations on India dictating Nepal's political affairs suggest?
International reaction (or non-reaction) after the promulgation of new constitution and the events that have unfolded since has made one thing clear: The world is divided into pro-China and pro-India lobbies, especially when it comes to Nepal. But they are having us believe that their views are independent of what China and India say about Nepal. The question is how far this polarization will endure and how it will impact the realpolitik of the tiny Himalayan country.
The West (the word does not include countries like Germany and France which welcomed Nepal's constitution, the former even condemning uncalled for remarks on Nepal from other European countries) reads Nepal through India's lens. When Nepal promulgated the constitution last September India "noted" it, China "welcomed" it, UN "acknowledged" it and the European Union called it a historic step.
The UN called it "a milestone in the peace process" after widespread media criticism. EU delegation in Nepal regretted India-EU joint statement only after government raised this issue. The Head of EU delegation to Nepal Rensje Teerink's remarks that "EU has strongly supported Nepal's peace process and welcomed constitution as a historic step" would not have come if Nepal had not strongly reacted to EU's complicity in India denouncing Nepal from EU forum.
The West has the burden of appearing independent and toeing Indian line at the same time. Here is an interesting corollary.
The West takes a certain position on Nepal but changes it after Indian provocation. Initially the UK had responded to Nepal's constitution positively. But it joined Indian bandwagon and called for "inclusive constitutional settlement" of Nepal's political problems in November last year during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's UK visit. India-EU statement, Nepal's reaction and EU's clarification follows the same pattern.
India is trying to justify economic blockade on Nepal by telling the world how Nepal is pushing half of its population to perennial marginalization. It is using every available platform to make a case against Nepal.
India raised the issue of insurgency era cases at the UN's universal periodic human rights review in Geneva in November, while Foreign Minister Kamal Thapa was defending Nepal's constitution and advocating for rights of a sovereign country. As if this was not enough, in another universal human rights review in March, India mentioned Nepal again and called for "strong national consensus" in "political and development agendas." This was followed by the India-EU joint statement.
As long as the West keeps listening to India, India will tell this story whenever it gets the opportunity. Expect more of such narratives in the days to come, for Madheshis are preparing for a decisive battle starting next week. India will most likely use this as an opportunity to say "I told you so." So where does China fit into this scheme?
China's reaction to Nepal has been exact opposite of the West and India. While India was strangulating Nepal with blockade and the West pretended to see it as an internal problem, Chinese President Xi Jinping, speaking at the 70th session of United Nations General Assembly in September, said: "Big, strong and rich should not bully the small, weak and poor." Xi, it is widely believed, was referring to India's recent domineering behavior in Nepal.
FLOOD ALERT: Kamala River exceeds safety levels, low-lying area...
During the days of active monarchy, Nepal would assure China of not letting West and India to misuse Nepali soil against China and China would vow not to stand as mute spectator when something bad happened to Nepal. Such promises and reassurances would be made during high level visits. A former consulate general to Lhasa recounts in You and Us (stories of China and Nepal published by China International Press): "Chinese Foreign Minister Marshal Chen Yi had declared publicly and assured Nepal that if any outside force tried to interfere in the internal matters of Nepal, China would not sit quietly and would retaliate accordingly." Therefore, China's mention of Nepal's territorial integrity and sovereignty in its statement should not be understood as a mere formality.
In the same book a former Chinese envoy to Nepal tells how late king Birendra had vowed to thwart Indian and Western efforts to fuel anti-China activities in Nepal. Birendra tells him: "some international forces, especially the Western countries, always want to take advantage of the Tibet and Dalai Lama issues to confound China... I always require the government to pay close attention to the issues of concern to China. If some problems occur, you can directly contact with me." Commitment to one China policy and Nepal not letting any forces use its land against China has huge significance for China. So long as Nepal stands by this commitment, China will not forsake Nepal.
Many things have changed in China-India and China-West relations since but the way it responds to political events in Nepal remains largely the same.
The West and India cannot overtly oppose one-China policy. So they assert themselves on China through Nepal, by raising issues of Tibet and constitution.
Indian critics are right that Oli has played China card against India and that Nepal's trade with China is far more difficult than with India. But they also need to come out of certain delusions. It is true that China wants Nepal to improve relations with India. No country tells other country to spoil its relation with a neighbor. It is also true that China is India's biggest trade partner and it does not want to spoil this relation for the tiny country that has nothing to offer to China. When it comes to trade and business it is not only China which benefits but also India.
The West has the burden of sounding original in Nepal, and China has the burden of telling Nepal not to rile India. But in practice, China has always opposed Indian meddling in Nepal. It is another thing that by design or default China has never prevailed over India in Nepal. The history might be repeated this time as well.
Fearing the powerful is in the fate of a weak country like Nepal. 'Who dares counter mighty India?' goes the popular refrain. India and West may continue to internationalize what is purely an internal matter for Nepal. Nepal may not be able to do more than condemn Indian highhandedness and complicity of the West or implore: Why did you do this to us?
But it will surely have a great bearing on collective consciousness of Nepalis. The countries which are preaching Nepal on its constitution are themselves battling with graver crises than those facing Nepal. Narendra Modi's India has earned the reputation of being intolerant to minorities like Muslims. Kashmir issue is eating into India's heart. Influx of refugees and growing terrorism has raised the specter of doom in EU. Had not it been sustained by mighty Germany so far, the EU would have crumbled.
Nepalis have soft corner for western countries. Nepalis are against violence and terrorism. It is this craving for peace and harmony which makes the country stand as an integrated whole. But when they feel that they are being subjected to persecution, they secretly wish to see something bad happen to their perceived foes. When something bad happens to EU and India, they will start celebrating in silence. How the West, India and China are wrestling to have their say in Nepal is the last thing they care about. One wonders if this resentment is what India and West want in Nepal.
@mahabirpaudyal
