OPINION (Spotlight Weekly)

Nepal's relations with Pakistan

By Shishir Kumar Sanjel

Those who have read B.P. Koirala's autobiography ('Aatama-brittanta) already know it well. In it, there is a detailed reference to the trying circumstances when Nepal decided to set up diplomatic relations with Pakistan and Israel---in early 1960s. As has been recorded by Koirala, who was prime minister at that time, that initiative was Nepal's assertive step as an independent country.

Today it is a different scene. And a disheartening one. Nepal's ability to assert on foreign policy matters appears eroding. Political leadership looks indifferent and bureaucracy under it has failed to prove its competence. Anyone who has cared to analyse events and trends of the past ten years would not disagree with this conclusion. Ironically, all of this is happening when the country is under the governance of the party late Koirala led for several years. Nepali Congress and its incumbent president, G.P. Koirala, have ruled this country for an extended period of time since the political change of 1990.

That Nepal's foreign policy veered off its independent course in these intervening years is too glaring to be glossed over. Distortions in priorities became the order of the day. Current status of uncomfortable relations with Pakistan is a striking example in this context. The present state of uneasiness found its expression in early January when visiting President Musarraf publicly admitted that he took up the case of a Pakistan Embassy official with the king and prime minister of this country. As is already known, an employee of the embassy was arrested by Nepali policemen just a day before Musarraf was to arrive in Kathmandu to attend the 11th summit of South Asian leaders. The man was alleged to have carried fake Indian and US currencies. He was later released, saying that it was a case of mistaken identity. But before the release, newspaper reports said, policemen beat him and his senior embassy colleague. In April last year, Nepal Police had created another identical scene by detaining a diplomat on charges of keeping explosives at his residence. A Pakistan Embassy press release at that time described the charges as ì false and

fabricated.î In diplomatic parlance, it amounted to astrong protest from Pakistan .

Pakistani authorities are convinced that Indians have a hand behind these incidents. "It was crude attempt to destabilise SAARC process and embarrass the host," said Musarraf at the press conference in Kathmandu on 6th of January.

Anyhow, people with experience in diplomacy say that even if a diplomat is found doing unlawful activities s/he cannot be arrested or beaten or penalised like ordinary criminals. There are different sets of rules to apply on foreign nationals enjoying diplomatic immunity under various international conventions. Such persons are sent back to their countries to face action for their misdeeds, if any. But in the case of these Pakistanis, Nepal has not made evidence of wrongdoing available despite repeated requests from Pakistan.

Let's not be carried away by Pakistani perception either. It may or may not be correct. We can separately put each of these cases into scrutiny, because we have seen newspaper pictures showing Nepali police officer literally dragging a Pakistani diplomat out of the house where he was temporarily staying. As

a member of the United Nations, and also a signatory of international conventions and agreements, Nepal cannot afford to ignore them when it comes to their adherence. If we choose to be wayward, we automatically lose our right to demand reciprocity and justice.

There often surfaces a contention that since Nepal does not have any significant trade or cultural relations, it can afford to sever all links with Pakistan. This is sheer foolishness. How can Nepal's long-term interests be served if we were to put all eggs into one (Indian) basket ? Diplomatic relations are not a subject that depends only on trade and culture. Those who advocate this kind of diplomacy should see examples set by others, including India. Are all countries that India has diplomatic relations with have significant trade contacts or share common (Hindu) culture ?

Like India, beside being a member of the SAARC Pakistan is an important country of this region. That it is also a nuclear power is a stark reality. The whole world knows it. And India itself recognises the fact. Had this not been the case, Vajpayee would not have invited Pakistani leader to Agra or shaken hand with him in Kathmandu. In this being the case, how can Nepal be expected to under-estimate Pakistan's importance, and devalue its bilateral relations the initial contacts for which began as early as 1952. Presently, over four hundred Nepali students are studying under Pakistan technical assitance programme.

Needless to emphasize, Pakistan's importance is also growing in the aftermath of tragic incident of September 11. International coalition formed to fight terrorism has brought the United States and the West closer to Pakistan. It was already enjoying a close relations with China, the only other world power even the US considers formidable. In other words, Pakistan is a country which is receiving attention from both China and the United States. How can a traditional friend like Nepal turn a blind eye to these emerging trends , and suddenly turn unfriendly to Pakistan ?

After all, both India and Pakistan came into existence at the same time---1947. Hence Nepal cannot adopt a policy that treats only one of them as a friend. It will be suicidal.