National 8 (Spotlight Weekly)

Debating Non-Issues

UML leaders raise vague issues during talks with senior communist leaders from India

By A CORRESSPONDENT

A high-level team from the Communist Party of India (CPI)† and leaders of Nepal's main opposition party held discussions last week on various issues at the CPN-UML headquarters at Balkhu. After the talks, UML leaders said they had requested Indian communist leaders to put pressure on New Delhi to amend unequal agreements between the two countries.

During their talks with the CPI delegation, led by secretary-general A.B. Bardhan, UML leaders avoided issues of genuine concern to Nepal. According to a UML press release, the party requested the CPI leaders to help Nepal amend bilateral treaties that ran counter to the kingdom's interests.

Nepalese communists regard the 1950 Nepal-India Peace and Friendship Treaty as discriminatory to Nepal. But they have failed to address the reality that kingdom has been unable to benefit from treaties that are considered "equal". The UML was split over the issue of the Mahakali Integrated Treaty with India on sharing water resources. But the main opposition party failed to request CPI leaders to implement the treaty, which was ratified by parliament in the midst of great promises.

Nepal and India have many outstanding issues in trade and other sectors, but Nepalese communist leaders chose to raise the amorphous issue of amending unequal treaties. In fact, communist parties in Nepal have long been playing politics by whipping up the issue of discriminatory treaties as part of their larger anti-India platform.

Although Nepal and India have signed many equal treaties, one sees clear difficulties when it comes to implementation. Whether it is the issue of connecting Indian Railways to the Birgunj or Bhairawa dry ports or exporting Nepalese ghee to India, the kingdom has been facing many impediments. But the leaders of the main opposition party did not consider it fit to raise these issues with the CPI team.

"Nepalese communist leaders have raised those issues which New Delhi has long considered anti-Indian," says a foreign policy analyst. "By raising such issues with Indian leaders, Nepalese communist leaders might have gained some points in projecting themselves as a messiah of Nepalese nationalism. In reality, however, they have sacrificed the genuine concerns of Nepal."

If the UML leaders had used their influence with Indian communist leaders to raise issues of genuine concern, the kingdom could have benefited immensely. Instead of advancing practical causes that affect everyday life, the UML pursued an agenda that would only go on to irritate the India psyche.

"Is linking the Indian railway network with Birgunj not a nationalist agenda? Would demands seeking fair treatment in trade have been considered anti-Nepal?" asks a businessman. "The actions of Nepalese communists has always proved counter-productive in India-Nepal relations."

Whenever Nepalese communists have raised the issue of unequal treaties and made demands for fair treatment, it has always hurt Nepalese interest, says another foreign relations expert. "Raising anti-Indian slogans does not make Nepalese nationalists. Treaties do not make any difference if there is understanding between two countries," he says.

Despite its effort to project itself as the custodian of Nepalese nationalism, the slogans raised by the communist parties can hardly be expected to serve the long-term interests of the country. How long can the country live under rhetoric that ignores its genuine interests?