NATIONAL 4 - (Spotlight Weekly)

‘There Is Sense Of Steadiness In Nepal-India Relations’

—Dr. BHEKH BAHADUR THAPA

Dr. BHEKH BAHADUR THAPA, Royal Nepalese Ambassador to India, is a well known intellectual. A US-trained economist who has held various positions including minister of finance and ambassador to the United States, Dr Thapa is about to complete his four-year term as ambassador to India. Dr Thapa, who was in Kathmandu on his way back to New Delhi after visiting Thimpu as a member of Nepalese delegation to the talks on refugees, talked to KESHAB POUDEL on Saturday on various facets of Nepal-India relations and the Bhutanese refugee problem. Excerpts:

You are coming toward the end of your tenure as Royal Nepalese Ambassador to India. How do you assess Nepal-India relations at this moment?

I will complete my term in a couple of months. These years have been rewarding in some ways and hectic in others. Relations between Nepal and India are extensive, as they always have been. On the whole, there is a level of steadiness. Some chronic and some new problems based on the changes that are taking place in both Nepal and India have continued to occupy our attention. Those who are unhappy with the way relations between Nepal and India are being developed, whether in India or Nepal, may generate different opinions. Overall, one can see steadiness and some stable indications at the people-to-people level. Occasionally, problems do crop up.

How do you assess the problems between the two countries?

The important thing is that problems between Nepal and India — whether on the need to make our borders scientific or exploit our water resources — need to be tackled in a way that would promote hope and prosperity. In the face of declining opportunities in both countries, the level of tolerance of the people and the way two governments conduct relations are important. To sum up, we have serious problems but we also have assurances of conduct based on traditions. At one level it is steady but at other level there are challenges we have continued to face.

Indians seem to be unhappy that Nepal has been ungrateful. Do you think Nepalis are ungrateful and anti-Indian feelings are not justified?

Can we really jump to conclusions based on periodic utterances by one group or another and consider them the voice of India as a whole? A few of us who occasionally raise our concerns use language inconsistent with the kind of friendship existing between Nepal and India. In the five decades since India became independent and Nepal got rid of the Rana regime, we could have certainly handled things better. There have been occasions where we could have become wiser and more civil in our conduct. Relations between two close countries can never be problem-free.

You mean we should handle relations more cautiously?

As I have said, there are serious problems that need to be solved. Between friends, solutions have to be found more amicably. I think this is something our conduct in the past has taught us. We must learn lessons without losing sight of the national perspective. The most important thing is that we in Nepal need to draw a bottom line concerning our national interest.

What do you mean by a bottom line?

There must be a line below which no one should play politics or games. We need to remind ourselves that larger national interests dictate wider pursuit of objectives through a more civil conduct. Likewise, I keep reminding myself that my job, as ambassador to India, is not just to deal with the government of India but also to deal with civil society. India is a vast country. You cannot reach every part and talk to all the people. But there is an audience interested and concerned about Indo-Nepal relations. By and large, we must look at our problems with positive eyes and try to find solutions. To that extent, I am satisfied.

Recently you have not minced any words in stating that Indian media is responsible in generating anti-India feelings in the Nepalese minds. Would you like to comment?

Recently when we were reviewing the problems and prospects of reviving the tourism industry, I talked with the media. It was more a complaint and certainly not an accusation. What I said was that we in Nepal, I hate to say this but in reality, have yet to learn how to deal and how to profit from the growing media as powerful centers in the conduct of our society. Sometimes there is a flow of false information. India is more advanced and they have a culture and tradition of educating their public quickly. Sometimes we don't share our information, they spread their own messages and information based on their own assumption. Because of that, Indian media sometimes disseminate one-sided views on Indo-Nepal relations. They draw their own conclusions. Nepal and India are close friends and the media must look at this perspective. It should take time to analyze things properly. Any conclusion they draw should be based not on one-sided stories but on a balanced perspective.

Do you mean the media are not objective?

The media have not been objective on many issues, such as the hijacking of Indian Airlines plane, the non-issue of Hrithik Roshan and the tragedy in the Royal Palace. If we are so close, can there be an information gap to the extent that they are spreading? Don't you have a responsibility of educating yourself before drawing a conclusion? This is the spirit I tried to project.

What role should the Indian media play?

On the whole, the media could be fairer. In today's changing world how and what the media conveys become a foundation for friendship. In the two years since the hijacking, the aggressiveness and style with which some Indian media outlets have projected Nepal have not been positive. The feeling in most of the places I have visited in India was that Nepal designed the unfortunate incident and that we were party to it. When such messages are carried to the people’s level, it becomes difficult for the governments to conduct relations in a friendly manner. This is not the way to conduct relations between two countries. Traditionally, we are trying to keep a level of openness in social, economic and other fronts. But we may be closing the door, rather than opening it.

You were recently in Bhutan for the 11th round of talks on the refugees. Do you see the possibility of a successful resolution of the issue?

In the last four years, I have been going back and forth as part of the Nepalese delegation and some times on my own talk to Bhutanese authorities on this issue. The changes that I have seen in both the attitude and expressions, including the recent actions on the part of the Bhutanese, give me some hope. They also see that it is in their interest to find a solution to this problem. The problem of Bhutanese refugees is extremely complicated. If you trace the beginning, refugees who came to Nepal passed the land of another country. As you know, Nepal does not share a border with Bhutan. The history of the eight of the first ten years of this problem was rather discouraging. It cast a shadow in relations in our neighborhood.

How do you see the new outlook of the Bhutanese government?

Fortunately, there is sympathy for the plight of the refugees. The international community is contributing to their survival with the hope that Nepal and Bhutan will solve this problem. In the last two ministerial meetings, I have seen a change in the dialogue and environment in Bhutan. My optimism is based on the nature of the dialogue. Now even we are talking of the difficult issues which earlier was unmentionable to Bhutanese authorities. From classification to categorization, to harmonization to repatriation, we are trying to simplify and expedite present activities in Birtamod in Jhapa in one camp. We are also talking about what has to be done in terms of creating the pipelines of ideas and activities leading towards a solution.

Do you think the verification process will be accelerated?

We plainly told them that at the rate the verification is going on, it will take six years even to verify people, which is only the preliminary part of the effort. Neither refugees nor the government has that kind of patience. It will be difficult to look after 100,000 people forever. Now we can talk about these things. Every genuine Bhutanese, regardless of the circumstances that compelled them to leave, needs to be accommodated by Bhutan. We are beginning to talk and display understanding on the issue and Bhutanese are listening. This is my rough optimism but I cannot jump to any hasty conclusion saying that this problem will be solved within next two or three years. But the environment is slowly changing and the world at large also has realized the gravity of the problem. Even distant neighbors of Nepal and Bhutan are taking action and urging us to come to terms with reality. We have seen significant changes in the last two years.

India is a good friend of both Nepal and Bhutan and is in an excellent situation to act as a bridge to solve the issue. If India approaches the issue sincerely, many believe it could be resolved much sooner. How do you view the role of India?

I cannot talk about the constraints of another nation nor can I talk about what Bhutanese authorities have said to our common neighbor. The reality is that refugees have crossed India's territory before entering Nepal. In the past, there was evidence that when the refugees wanted to go to Bhutan on their own risk, they were put in trucks before they could reach the Bhutanese border and sent back to Nepalese territory.

How do you visualize India’s approach?

In our dialogue with the government of India at the political and diplomatic levels, we have kept India informed of all developments. When the Bhutanese refugees are repatriated, they will have to cross India before going into Bhutan. We need to seek good will and good wishes and every possible cooperation from India. If distant neighbors come to help Nepal and Bhutan in this issue, it seems more logical for India to take an interest.

Do you see any changes in Indian policy?

India's position, as has been stated openly time and again, is that this is a bilateral problem between Bhutan and Nepal. This is the reason why Nepal and Bhutan have to solve the problems on their own. If Nepal and Bhutan jointly approach India, India can be helpful at that time. I am unaware how much Bhutanese authorities keep India informed, but we have kept India informed of development and sought their blessing, not direct involvement and meditation but exchange of information. Therefore, an atmosphere of good will and understanding will prevail.

You seem quite optimistic that things are moving on the right track. Can you give us an idea how long it might take for a final resolution?

The recent dialogue with Bhutanese refugees indicated that the process of verification in one of the camps could be completed by early November. We covered 45 percent of the total population in that camp. The rest should be based on simplified procedure and decentralized activities on the part of the verification team. The most difficult problem is the question of harmonization since we agreed a long time ago that the refugees would be grouped in four categories.

On what basis is the verification process going on?

There is an effort to identify who falls in which category. There are refugees who have been forcibly evicted by intimidation and compelling circumstances and others who left on their own. The Bhutanese might claim they left voluntarily.

How do you solve such complicated issues?

We need to solve the problems through a harmonized policy. That is the most intractable and difficult issue that we will have to face. Both sides are willing to examine this context in the near future. If we arrive at this stage, the rest will flow automatically. We will have many teams. I can only talk about our expectations and the perspective of minds. We would like to see this problem solved within two or three years. The most difficult part is the process of harmonization of approach. That bridge we have yet to cross. I think this is where the Nepalese intelligentsia as well as the media could, through proper interpretation, continue to help maintain the atmosphere of cordiality we have seen in the last two years. From the King of Bhutan to the high officials to the intelligentsia, everyone is sounding much more open and accommodating. We need to keep up that spirit to reach a satisfactory solution.