The checklist

There have long been calls for timely updating of Indo-Nepal relations. The most important bilateral relation for Nepal cannot in the 21st century continue to operate on the basis of a nearly 70-year-old treaty, which was signed on Nepal's behalf by a Rana prime minister. Thankfully, this need is being felt both in Nepal and India. This is why the two countries had during the India visit of former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai in 2011 started the process of formation of an Eminent Persons Group (EPG) to suggest changes in bilateral relations. Nepal has now finalized the names of its four-member EPG. (India already has a similar EPG in place.) The Nepali panel has been given two years to study past treaties, talk to relevant stakeholders in the two countries and on that basis prepare a final report. Nepal-India ties will, accordingly, be adjusted on the basis of these two sets of reports. The finalization of Nepali panel ahead of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli's planned visit to India, sometime in late February, is being seen meaningfully.


New and improved treaties are well and good. But we believe there should first be firm commitment from both the sides to respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity, not just on paper but in actual practice. This means, above all, fully recognizing one another as completely sovereign, independent countries. During the recent Indian blockade, Nepal's right to sea as a land-locked country was violated by India. As troubling were images of protestors raining stones on Nepali security forces from across the border. These incidents violate a cornerstone of bilateral relations between any two sovereign countries: not allowing the territories of one to be used against the interests of the other. The best of treaties will be meaningless if the stronger power is determined to coerce the weaker power to do its bidding. The biggest challenge for the Nepali panel will be working out a mechanism whereby India can be persuaded to treat its supposedly closest friend with the respect such a close friend deserves.

This, however, does not mean only India is to be blamed. Perhaps India would have taken Nepal more seriously had our own leaders, of all political persuasions, not been ever-ready to trade away Nepal's interests in return for personal favors from New Delhi. The Nepali panel should ensure this does not happen in the future, for instance by suggesting mandatory presence of Nepali Embassy officials during interactions in India between any past or present holder of political office in Nepal (who are getting state benefits) and their Indian counterparts. The panel could also propose to India the revival of the Gujral Doctrine of non-reciprocity with smaller states, which, if applied, could earn India tremendous goodwill, in Nepal and beyond. Another important area the panel should cover is the possibility of more third-country trade via Indian ports. If it wants to be a credible global power, its neighbors like Nepal should be able to tell India, it should first show clear sign of leadership in its backyard.

Related story

The ultimate travel CHECKLIST