As we all know India-Nepal relations are at their all-time low as the traditional narrative goes. India and Nepal relations are centuries old. The two share close socio-cultural, religious, people-to-people, political and economic ties. With shared ethnics, they also have an open border which makes the two countries even more special considering the kind of border related insecurities countries face in south Asia. The open border is not just a gateway for trade and economic movement; people have carried cultures and philosophies across borders. The Roti-Beti relations stand as the hallmark of peace and progress between the two countries. The modern day India-Nepal relations are defined by the 1950 treaty of peace and friendship equating to acknowledge and respect the complete sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of each other. But what has bound us in the past has everything that keeps us divided at present and the open border is disputed. Back off India, Go Back India is now a common phenomenon on social media. A friendly advice that became one of the peace facilitators in 2006 turned into a wrong advice in 2015. Ethnic ties are conditional and the very foundation of India-Nepal ties, the treaty of 1950 is called outdated. On the other hand, the China factor has harmed the peace and harmony between the two countries. What has led to these changes is a question. Are India-Nepal relations heading towards challenging times or is it the media narrative that will bring the two, face to face? How the countries are uniting to fight COVID-19? This interview will explore these questions.
About the Expert
Dr. Bishnu Raj Upreti
Dr. Bishnu Raj Upreti is the Executive Chairperson at the Policy Research Institute, a think tank of Government of Nepal. Dr. Upreti holds PhD (2001) in Conflict Management and Msc on Knowledge System Management (1998) from Wageningen University the Netherlands and MA in Sociology (1994) from the Tribhuvan University, Nepal. He worked as Research Fellow at the King’s College, University of London and the Centre fro Environmental Strategies, University of Surrey, UK. In the 40 years of experiences (in the field of development from 980 to 1996 and in research from 996 to date), Dr. Upreti has gained wider experiences from local to international levels. He served as South Asia Coordinator of a global research programme called NCCR North-South and Senior Researcher focusing state building, peace and unconventional security (water, food, health, environmental security); governance and north-south research partnership.
Interview with the Expert
Q. In the past five years Nepal seems to have shifted from special relations to conditional relations with India. How do you see it?
A. In regard to your first question. First of all Nepal's foreign policy is always guided by certain fundamental principles like mutual respect for each other, territorial integrity and sovereignty, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, respect for mutual equality, non-aggression and peaceful settlement of the dispute, cooperation for mutual benefits, abiding faith of the UN charter and the value for the peace. These are the established principles on which Nepal's foreign policy is based. In that context in the past and present, our relations with India, China and all other countries are guided by this principle and there is no shift in Nepal’s foreign policy as you indicated. Further, I feel it is more appropriate to use the term multi-dimensional relations instead of a special relation, which is better characterized for Nepal-India relation because we have not only government to government relation but also very strong people to people relation, relation at the non-governmental and professional level, business level, media, academics and researcher, activists, religious community. It has a multi-faceted relation with India. Our relations are also 10shaped by interdependence. The common notion is that Nepal is dependent on India but in fact, India is also dependent on Nepal. Nepal is dependent on India. For example: Water resources, the historical political leaders and freedom fighters from both countries were sheltering to the other country, the amount of the remittance Indians get from Nepal is more than the amount of remittance Nepali get from India. In that sense it has a very multidimensional interdependent relationship between these two countries. We are two independent sovereign countries and our relation is also based on sovereign equality irrespective of the difference in size of the country or population or economy or zone of influence. But still these two countries are independent sovereign countries. In that way we see in a broader context. I don't see that our relationship has shifted or it's special et cetera. Our relation is multi-dimensional and based on interdependence. That is how I see.
Q. Thank you sir. Often when we are writing as young scholars and when we read the literature on India-Nepal relation, the phrase, deep-rooted socio-cultural relations and people-to-people relations to define Indian Nepal ties is often overused. Personally, I feel that in most of the literature, the term has been overused which has often led to ignorance of the actual issues between the two countries and that is reflected in a lot of talks. So as a scholar, an expert on peace and conflict, what would you suggest to make it timelier? As you have already suggested a few things, what would you suggest in the writing sphere or the scholarly sphere to make it more timelier?
A. As a matter of fact, one issue deep rooted so culturally religious and people to people relationship between these two countries is a reality. It is a factual reality because we have that ties and of course, once there are people and the country's interest foreign policy is for that. So it is not an exaggeration for me. It is really shaping one of the important factors influencing our ties or relation between the two countries. Both countries are following the foreign policy principle outlined in their respective constitution and also their foreign policy guidelines. Being a neighbor, different issues need to be tackled and they have to be dealt based on the foreign policy principle. Both countries always do that considering their sovereignty, equality, new and fast changing global and regional orders are also posing new challenges and there, you are correct that we have to look at these issues and examine the challenges and opportunity in our existing bilateral relations. These challenges are for example: the migration, the climate change effect, trade as well as extremism and radicalization type of the activities. So, when we talk about the India and Nepal relations, we also have to look at that, which needs to be collective and constituted action from both countries and also from the wider neighbors. In that sense, in one part, we have to look at special ties of the peoples to people relations but also we need to look at the other bigger issue. Of course the strategic priority of the country saves the foreign policy interest and therefore we have to consider them as well.
Q. So you rightly pointed out that there are things that we sometimes overlook but the changing sphere of strategic ties and political ties, we need to look beyond it. Now coming to the other question, We all know that COVID-19 has come as a global challenge to both India and Nepal and other countries across the world and the two countries are cooperating to fight hand in hand despite the differences. Yet the differences on the political front ignore the humanitarian response from India. We see a lot of talk going on in Indian media that despite India's response in the previous occasions like Operation Maitri during the 2015 earthquake, we saw that there was appreciation, yet there was a hesitation in Nepal that India is behaving in a certain way.
Do you think Nepal would like to convert COVID-19 from a challenge to a bilateral opportunity and how?
A. In an open and free society there are always some comments and criticism, constructive or not, but I do not think the political front has ignored the humanitarian response from India either in the COVID-19 or in the earthquake. Our political front was quite responsive, engaged and appreciated but some criticized it, it is very obvious. It is a democratic country and some have that opinion and if they see some weaknesses they will do. Our leaders have appreciated the support that India has provided to deal with the COVID challenges. For example: On April 23, 2020, our prime minister expressed gratitude to India and thanked the PM of India, the Indian government and Indian people for their generous support of the essential medicine to Nepal to fight the COVID pandemic. Our Health minister on May 17 appreciated the 30 000 PCR provided by India. In many instances Nepali people and Nepal have appreciated the support India has provided. So I don't really see that our politicians are ignoring these humanitarian fronts. Nepal has also appreciated the recent vaccine support by India. India provided us one million doses of COVID-19 version under the grant assistance. I understood that it was placed under the neighborhood first policy of India and was handed over by the Indian ambassador, Vinay Ji to our prime minister and there was a special occasion to appreciate that in the prime minister's office. Our prime minister especially thanked and extended the warm appreciation to India, the Indian prime minister, Indian people and Indian government for their generous support in the time of the crisis. So I don't really think that Nepali political front has undermined it but there are some criticisms and comments particularly when you talk about the 2015 earthquake. There were some irregularities or anomalies mainly from the media side and because of that, there was some criticism but we have appreciated the support of India at the time of the crisis. COVID support is always appreciated and I didn't see any criticism from any front when India was supporting us.
Q. You mentioned the media in the two countries. Often it is the media who plays the devil's role. Considering the things that have happened in the past especially in the past five years beginning with the implementation of the new constitution in Nepal, how do you see the role of the media in Nepal-India relations? Do you think the absence of responsible journalism on the part of Nepalese and Indian media houses have caused considerable damage to the bilateral ties?
A. Especially in the two occasions, I didn't see much constructive role of the media especially the Indian media during the 2015 earthquake. We have some differences in the Limpiyadhura-Lipulekh and Kalapani border issue and in both cases the role of Indian media was not what we were expecting. The media has also some responsibility to help into the difficult situation but the role of the media is to provide factual information to inform the general public and more important is to help to ease the difficulties and difficult situations. Making issues sensational and providing incomplete, manipulated or even biased information and giving misinformation was creating confusion and tension. That was the reality. The role of the media in both countries was somehow very superficial, not based on the strategic importance of the countries but also sensational and one-sided that I realized.
I realized that the vast majority of Indian people were not much aware about the ongoing changes in Nepal and the Indian media because i was the coordinator of the special study group composed by the government of Nepal and at that time what Indian media was reporting about the Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura and Kalapana area was factually wrong. I was very closely watching and they were also referring to me and I realized that Indian media either didn't understand the reality or they deliberately manipulated. I'm not blaming all the Indian media but many Indian media and journalists were not constructive. If i compare the two countries, the influence of Nepal was less, Nepali media was less than the Indian media but Indian media is one sided. So I wish, Journalists in both countries behave more responsibly while dealing with sensitive bilateral issues and provide the factual evidence based information so that the general public will be informed more appropriately. That is what I expect and here there is a lot of improvement.
Q. You rightly pointed at the border dispute between India and Nepal. Do you think the kind of conversation we have started, like the two countries have again restored the bilateral talks, do you think that the two will be again on the same platform?
A. Because we have such a multi-dimensional relation with India and this border dispute is one part. The prime ministers of both countries have talked at the highest level and our foreign ministers are talking on that and a special meeting has been conducted. All are going to quite positive direction but the issue is quite complicated and it is unsettled for almost 204 years and we can't expect in one meeting or one go but what we are expecting is that India will understand and realize the essence of the Sugauli treaty of 1816 and it will be settled according to the fundamentals of the Article 5 of the Sugauli treaty.
Q. Moving on to other questions, India has been a peace facilitator in Nepal and it played an important role in the democratic transition but the similar facilitation at present is termed as the wrong advice. What are the reasons for such changes and other political parties in Nepal using India for political gains?
A. Yes, during the time of the armed conflict and peace process, many countries and institutions were supporting us to reach to the peaceful settlement and obviously India is one of the influential and was in forefront to help Nepali political decision makers to reach the negotiated settlement. We appreciated that. If your question was directed to refer to the visit of the special envoy of the Indian prime minister at the final stage of the promulgation of the new constitution of 2015 and suggesting to wait for the parliament to promulgate the new constitution. It was wrong advice and because of that there was a possibility of total derailing if our parliament or our constituent assembly was waiting for long. There was a fair chance of derailing and not able to bring the constitution. So that advice was not working at all.
Regarding the question of reason for such changes; perhaps it is too superficial to go in that way. If we see the general character of the political parties of south Asia and especially Nepal, India and Bangladesh, often the party has those characters and the party always tries to use whatever they can to have their influence. So, I take it in that way. None of the countries and actors should promote such acts for the purpose of strengthening political stability. I envision that we have to respect each other's sovereignty and help/assistance is needed if there is required.
Q. When we talk about the wrong advice as you also agreed that it was not a timely advice. But would you say that wrong advice has become an instigator for the anti-India notion which is a scholar on reading about Nepal, this phenomenon was not there 10 years back? But suddenly this wrong advice has turned into an anti-Indian. Doesn’t it create a political environment in Nepal? During my last visit to Nepal, somewhere I really felt that being Indian there is kind of the welcoming note that has gained lesser importance now. Do you agree to that?
A. If you look at the media report, the media coverage and the speech response of different people during that time and particularly the issue of the blockade, of course there was, because Nepali people really suffered. As you see we are almost India-locked and if supply is obstructed in this or that name and then at that time it was the real crisis and that was the strategic mistake India made in my personal opinion. Consequently that has quite negative public perception towards India because Nepali people really suffered. If you look at that time, UNICEF reported that almost 3 million children were severely suffering and are going to die. Personally, in my home, i was not able to cook for 21 days. So that type of difficulty was created and India did not realize that. That was not what we expected from our neighbors with such a strong relation like India. Gradually the time passes and that type of the situation is also more normalized but once India started providing support in the crisis like COVID-19, again the situation is entirely different. So it depends upon the behavior how India treats Nepal and personally in my personal observation and my personal experiences, the blockade India is denying it was not us but the Nepali people. At least many of us don't believe in that and that blockade was the real factor that was negatively affecting the public perception of Nepal towards India.
Q. If we talk about the 2015 episode, India's major concern was the spillover effects as it is usually said that what happens in Nepal has a complete impact or a larger impact on India. So in that regard, if India was initiating to intervene in a friendly way, how does that convert into a wrong advice? I think in the past episodes also, we had similar occasions that India tried to convey it and it was received on a friendly note.
A. There are problems because we are in the border and we have many difficulties and the instability in one country in the bordering area will affect the other. That is the reality and that's why we have this multi-dimensional, multi-faceted type of the issues concerned as well as the relations. But we can settle that through meaningful engagement, discussion, debate and the real discussion among the political leaders among the foreign minister, among the diplomats but coercive type of the forces if that comes like the blockade and others at that time it will not help. What I believe as a researcher and teacher of conflict management, there is a solution to every problem and which can be settled 99 percent by meaningful engagement, discussion, reflection and not by coercion of course. If the coercive type of the activities is started, the result is win and lose and it can't be a win-win situation but from meaningful engagement we can reach the win-win solution. So in that sense whatever problem we will have or we had, it is always better to settle through the negotiated discussion and engagement. I truly believe in that.
Q. When we see these kinds of multi-dimensional relations, the very foundation of our relation is the 1950 treaty at present. Nepal has been demanding the revision of treaty of peace and friendship. What changes would Nepal like to see in the treaty and will it not affect the grassroots level foundations of people-to-people ties as well as the security dimension of our relations?
A. The last point to respond first, it will not affect both the people to people ties as well as the security concern. Yes, Nepal wants to revise the 1950s treaty. We have officially in our highest level meetings with the prime minister, it has been requested. Because it was almost a 74 years old treaty and now we want to make the treaty based on the foreign policy principle of both countries. Realizing this fact prime minister of both countries had also formed this eminent persons group (EPC) to comprehensively examine the issues and concerns of both country to improve the bilateral relation including peace and friendship treaty of 1950s and the EPC has already been preparing the report and waiting to submit it to the both prime ministers. This is the very foundation to start to think on the revision of the 1950s treaty because it is also part of that. Once we make the revision of the 1950s treaty, we can easily address the concern for example: you raised this grass root ties, special ties; we have that ties and also the security. Even in the new treaty we can ensure this concern because these are mutual concerns. It is not only for India, it is also for Nepal. In the new treaty, these provisions with the updated context as well as the founding principle of foreign policy directives of both countries we can make. So the issue is to sit together, work out together, bring these concerns, what exactly are the problems and why it will affect them. If there is a security concern of India or Nepal then that has to be discussed thoroughly. Explain the possibilities and also work out the solution. Once both countries agree then include that into the treaty. So it is not an issue. It can be nicely dealt and addressed, we have to do that because of the security concerns and people to people relation, these two are the fundamentally important element of our relation as well. The first and foremost for me as a researcher is the acceptance of the report as the basis to work further by the two countries.
Foreign ministries have to work on that. Look at the report: what are the recommendations, whether they are possible to apply or not. If not how they can be implemented. If implementable, what can be done and based on that we can come up with the new friendship treaty. I think there is a very clear way. Of course, India could have some concerns but that concerns come to the table and discuss and then, Nepal could have some concern and response as well. How to deal with that because it is not one country issue. If the Border security issue and if the people-to-people relation is the concern of both countries then in that context, i say there is a great way forward in accepting the EPG report and make that as the reference and start from there and revise the 1950s treaty.
Q. From 1955 itself, when Nepal forged its ties with China, there were certain writings and news reports in the media discussing that China has become a major factor in India-Nepal relations. Obviously Nepal as a sovereign country has the right to forge ties with any of the countries and it also has national interests but in the past one decade we see that China has emerged as a strong player in Nepal. Many of the scholars and the strategists indicate that it is a strategic part between India and Nepal. Do you buy that argument or do you see that in that regard?
A. China is influential not only in Nepal but it is influential within India and also in south Asia and globally. But for us, both India and China are supporting our development, they are helping us in different types, scale and nature of the investment and the projects and that we always welcome. We appreciate their support because we are in the process of the fundamental transformation and we need to do large scale infrastructure development. We need trade promotion, we have to reduce the trade deficiency. In that case we always welcome the support of any country which has not affected the mutual relations. So we don't see that India versus China. For us, these two countries are important on their own and we don't see that because of the Chinese support, the Indian side is affected or we don't see because of the Indian support, Chinese is affected. Both of them are supporting our need and interest and if it is not as per the interest and need of the country, we don't accept that. That is established and in that sense I don't really see that one country versus another. We appreciate the large-scale investment from both countries more and more again. For example: Rail transport Network, Renewable energy, Infrastructure development to trade related issues. These are our core concerns and here we need the support of the international collaborators, our big neighbors who have that capacity to support, we always appreciate. We are equally concerned that we don't want to affect the interest of the other country. We will not play with that. We have this Panchsheel principle. We will be really focusing on the interest of our own country without affecting the interest of the other neighbors. So in that respect, mutual equality is our fundamental principle and by which we work and in that sense I really don't say that engagement of China will undermine democracy or will undermine the Indian support etc. and vice versa.
Q. You said that China has been supporting the development and trade partnership. It is playing important role right now but do you see the Chinese influence or the Chinese role is limited to these sectors only because when we talk about it, the democratic movements in Nepal had one thing in common, in Nepal's commitment for not allowing external interference but why India has had its cautious steps and India has started moving towards that kind of crisis. Don't you think Nepal aligns the same as China works against the ethics and spirit of democracy in Nepal because we cannot deny the kind of Chinese prisons in the political domain at present?
A. First we have to understand the Geo-Strategic interest of the big country. Why does India view it that way? It's up to the Indian to see. I can't say anything why India views that but what we see is that we have a firm stand and the known interference from any external player either India or China or USA or any. We are small in size but as I shared earlier the sovereign equality is the same. Our prime minister repeatedly raised that concern at the highest level. So for me, the known interference is our fundamental principle. We have not realized any interference so far and however if it occurs we do not accept that type of interference neither from China nor from India nor from any other country. In this respect it is important to refer to the statement of our foreign minister made earlier. We always maintain with our neighbors, we never compare our relations with our friends so within that framework what i see, we didn't see any threat from China or India for our democracy. If there is a threat it is from our own internally. If we are not able to manage ourselves it may be a threat and at that time, maybe some suggestion or some opinion from external will come as per their perspective. But first and foremost, to strengthen democracy, to achieve the stability, peace and economic prosperity, we Nepali people have to do and sometimes we have problems, sometimes we are successful but that is how developing countries and developing societies work. So in that sense I really don't see that there is a threat to democracy, there is a threat to other countries interest because of the engagement of one country. That is how I see.
Q. Coming to my last question and it is more on a qualitative front. Since 2014 we see that China's investment in Nepal has overpassed India. Considerably India's investment is very low now. How different is the Chinese investment from India in Nepal and do you think large investments from India will make a difference in Nepal-India relations and what are the other areas of cooperation that can infuse trust between the two countries?
A. Only investment is not the determining factor between the two countries. Of course we are looking for the large scale investment for bigger infrastructure and India is also helping on that like in the Arun project and others. But still we expect more from there. Some of the support provided by India are strategically important and one or two areas I see personally where the improvement can be easily made is the delaying. Because one character of many of the Indian projects is that it takes so long. Hulaki RajMarga, for example. First the Indian support is appreciated, second we expect large infrastructure investment from India and it will of course make the differences because if Nepal has the problem, it will have an effect on our neighbors. So in that sense, if we are prosperous, if we are economically strong, it will help India and China and other neighbors as well.
That's why I said mutual interdependence. We have huge potential for water resources development, we have huge potential for renewable energy promotion, we have huge potential for large scale infrastructure development and there we need huge investment. We expect from China, we expect from India, we expect from other countries. Small projects, we can do ourselves and whatever India is helping in the small project, i hope India will consolidate that and concentrate on the bigger and larger projects and it will have more bigger impact, economic impact, social impact and it will have a bigger bilateral impact as well.
Q. Any closing remarks sir!
Basically I want to bring a few points which I personally think is quite important for our two countries to consider. First and foremost is the revision of the 70 years old peace and friendship treaty of the 1950s in the spirit of the foreign policy principle of both countries as well as the changing global context because this context is also quite important. As I shared earlier, the very first important step is to accept the EPG report and start from there. That is one important area where India and Nepal should work and Indian prime minister will hopefully take that seriously. The second: Nepal is always looking for cross-border connectivity and both countries are discussing that since Nepal is landlocked and it is our priority and here we expect more concrete and broader engagement. The third: India is our largest trading partner and the trade deficit with India is really huge and therefore reducing this trade deficit is our priority and there we expect India's support and collaboration, investing in the large scale transportation network, renewable energy. And the other important common factor not limited to India and Nepal is the collective action for addressing the common challenges posed by this global change processes like the climate risk, migration and other many issues like poverty, inequality, injustice. All these issues are common and therefore we have to work and what i say is that India has helped us in many senses and still we want further engagement, further support and settle any differences amicably with the mutual respect and mutual trust by the engagement, dialogue and debate. That is quite important. I hope these two countries, the leadership of both countries will consider these points and will reach the new height of the two countries relations.
About the Interviewer:
Mr. Rishi Gupta
Rishi Gupta is a Visiting Fellow at AIDIA. He is an Indian Council for Social Sceince (ICSSR) Doctoral Fellow at the Centre for South Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi India.