The perception that India’s blessings are a prerequisite for political power in Nepal continues to gain in strength
A few days ago Deputy Prime Minister Kamal Thapa who also heads the foreign ministry had invited some ex-foreign ministers and retired senior diplomats for an informal dialogue on the current state of Nepal-India relations. It was a positive gesture.
In the course of his presentation to the select audience, Thapa pointed out that in his interaction with Indian leaders he found that there were dissatisfactions over some issues. First, according to Thapa, Indian leaders feel that senior leaders from Nepal backtrack on their commitments without considering its implications on the relationship between the two countries. Second, Thapa said, Nepal has been somewhat insensitive to suggestions of Indian government on the new constitution.
Peacekeeping as a source of Nepal's soft power
Thapa's candid remarks, naturally, led to a lively discussion and also to many questions. Many participants including myself wanted to know the names of our esteemed leaders who made specific promises to their Indian counterparts and then forgot about it when they returned to Nepal. Thapa hesitated to divulge the names of these leaders and admitted that he did not know what promises were made to the Indian leadership because they had not taken the foreign ministry into confidence.
Bilateral relations between any two independent and sovereign countries have to be viewed in the context of their individual national interests and the level of trust that exists at the level of political leaderships. After hearing foreign minister Thapa, it seemed that Nepali leaders did not take their dialogue and the assurances they gave to the Indian leadership seriously once they were back in Nepal. Furthermore, neither the foreign ministry nor the Nepali people have been informed about the contents of the discussions with Indian leaders. All that people like me could gather from Thapa's presentation was that the interaction of top leaderships of major parties with India did nothing to enhance the atmosphere of trust between the two countries with historical ties.
External blessings
In their dealings with India, Nepali leaders have generally showed an attitude of "soft kowtow" for personal or party reasons, occasionally punctured by defiance. What has been lacking is proper assessment of Nepal's national interests and formulation of a state policy that remains constant irrespective of the person or party in power. The idea that blessings of external elements, especially the southern neighbor, is a prerequisite for political power in Nepal has continued to gain in strength after the second Jana Andolan and this explains an increasing level of kowtow in foreign relations. This kind of mindset has encouraged Nepali political leaders to put their political interests above national interests and the two, as we see, are not always congruent.
The kowtow mentality of Nepali leadership has encouraged the Indian bureaucratic establishment to unnecessarily meddle in the internal affairs of Nepal, which often seems like "micromanagement" of the Nepali state. This is unfortunate. When relations between a small and a large and powerful neighbor falls prey to a kowtow mentality, the smaller country becomes increasingly dependent on the larger one, both materially and psychologically. This further reinforces the patronizing attitude and creates the basis for future conflict.
Lessons for future
Let us take the case of Nepal. We went through a period of Maoist armed rebellion against a parliamentary system in Nepal for ten long years. It is now clear that our Maoists friends who are now in power benefitted enormously from the "benign neglect" of India, especially after the letter by Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Baburam Bhattarai to the Indian government pledging their loyalty became public. The result was an increase in the level of violence in the nation and it provided an opportunity for the king to take over the reins of the state.
In this whole process India maintained good relations both with the parliamentary regime as well as the Maoists (indirectly with the later), and ultimately assumed the role of a peacemaker. Here was a situation where the bigger power assumed to an extent the role of both problem-creator as well as the peacemaker. In fact when relations between a small and a big nation get caught up in a kowtow mentality in bilateral relations, the smaller nation invariably becomes an unannounced colony or a region for political intrigue and unnecessary interference by the politico-bureaucratic establishment of the larger nation.
In this scenario, again, the bigger nation assumes a double face: both that of problem-creator and of problem-solver in the small nation. In our context there is unannounced blockade by India and through it an attempt is being made to define the parameters of our constitutional, even while it is argued that it is the Nepali political parties who have to decide what is to be done in their own country. To an extent we can say that our southern neighbor is assuming a double role.
As for the political parties in Nepal, both Madheshi and the so-called Big Three, the focus has not been on seeking solutions through mutual dialogue but on getting India on their side whenever possible. Naturally, Nepal is in danger of becoming a playground for our bigger neighbors. If the current generation of leadership in Nepal does not become aware of this reality it will prove to be the most irresponsible bunch of power-hungry politicians who didn't hesitate to act against dignity and self respect of Nepali people for their personal interests.
Ultimately the unannounced blockade of Nepal by India makes it clear that the relationship between any two countries depends on the perception of national interest. For a small country like Nepal it is time to recognize the fact that a kowtow attitude is a sure recipe for the institutionalization of dependency syndrome devoid of a sense of dignity and self-respect. This ultimately reflects a willingness to barter away national interest for the goal of hanging on to power. It is this realization that should be internalized and taken as a lesson and a guide for a more dignified, stable and mature relationship with our neighbors in the future.
