No end in sight

Political parties in Nepal do not seem to agree on a common agenda even after nasty past experiences. Transient coalitions have repeatedly fallen after every national crisis and infighting and factionalism are rampant. With India refusing to play a pro-active role since 2006, the situation has aggravated. There is a section of the intelligentsia which believes that New Delhi should play a more unifying role in the affairs of the tiny Himalayan kingdom. From India's point of view, an unprotected Nepal is not in its favour: it becomes amendable to be exploited by various external players. The United States, China and the European Union have been active in the region since political troubles began for Nepal. 

Nihar Nayak, Research Fellow at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) considers it the responsibility of India to rise to help build a political consensus in Nepal. India started the 2006 peace process and it should be taken to its logical conclusion.

 “India started the ‘Peace Process’ in 2006 and it is her responsibility to complete it by helping develop a consensus among political parties. India’s policy of non-intervention will not help both India and Nepal,” says Nihar. In addition, Nihar says India’s policy towards Nepal is far from clear.

Source say with China developing infra structural projects and gradually coming closer to Indian borders, a long term assessment is necessary. In 2007-08, China began construction of a 770-kilometre railway connecting Lhasa, the Tibetan capital, with the border town of Khasa in Nepal which in all likely hood will be extended to Kathmandu. China’s involvement in a project to build a road link between Kathmandu and Lumbini, an important Buddhist pilgrimage site located very close to the Indian border, is also regarded significant.
 
With this project, it would significantly improve China’s strategic access to India’s borders.

While South Korea and Japan are keen to work with the Nepalese government to develop Lumbini, the birth place of Gautam Buddha, India’s ambiguity led to China bagging the coveted project whereas it should have been New Delhi's baby.  India, say observers, should have moved in conjunction with Tokyo and Seoul. The same could have happened in Pokhara where China has bagged the advantage of developing an international airport. Pokhara is where India has a developed and integrated facility for the Nepalese Gurkhas and their families for pension disbursements. 

A senior intelligence hand says it is only a matter of time when Nepal will realise the high cost in allowing China to make inroads. “China has attached a cost to everything. If its companies come, they will require security and will invest through companies which are controlled and supported by the government. Whereas Indian investments in Nepal are from corporate business houses who hire locals.  Chinesecompanies are reportedly not keen to hire locals, making India  a favourable proposition. They say it is important to remember that China’s primary objective has been to keep a handle on anti-China activities in the area - in particular activities deemed hostile by Beijing such as keeping tabs on the activities of Tibetan refugees in return for impressive investment proposals.

Experts say that India needs to be clear about the big picture as geographies of the two countries cannot be changed. “It is crucial to remember that we overlook small hiccups in relations between two traditional neighbours with close cultural ties. In the context, it would be wise to remember that the sensitivities of both the countries be kept in the mind. There is this prickly feeling in Nepal - every now and then - that India has been playing the big brother. Such feelings among smaller neighbours is probably legitimate.

Families between the two countries share common bonds, traditions, languages and culture. In addition, both are democracies  with shared values, as opposed to a Communist atheist China. There are a number of Nepalese nationals who work in India.

Nepal's top political leaders across the spectrum and their divides, have strong Indian connections. A number of them, including Prachand and Baburam Bhattarai have studied in New Delhi's JNU.

There is also a strong army connection. Pensions for former Gurkha soldiers and their families in Nepal from India are pegged at Rs 1300 crore annually. In addition, India has set up specialised medical facilities for the ex-servicemen and their families, special educational support for the children of the ex-servicemen while it's a common knowledge that Gurkhas serving in Indian battalions are not just on par with other Indian units but are highly decorated as well. “All this is not going to help if we do not re-emphasise this relationship,” says an analyst.

Political leaders in Nepal are not just well disposed towards New Delhi but actually look for guidance and support, particularly in connection with a just and lasting resolution to the problems bedevilling Kathmandu. It would be unwise for India to sit quiet and allow ‘other forces’ to penetrate a mainland which has a lot in common with India. There is still a chance.

mayank.singh@thesundayindian.com