National 4 (Spotlight Weekly)

‘India Must Accept That Nepal Is A Sovereign Nation Between Two Giants’

— SHAILENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA

A former minister and diplomat, SHAILENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA is known for his forthright views on Nepalese foreign policy. Upadhyaya, who served as Nepal's permanent representative to the United Nations in the 1970s, was foreign minister in 1988-89 when Nepal-India relations plummeted to their lowest level. Author of the book "Tryst with Diplomacy", based on the history of Nepal-India relations, Upadhyaya spoke to KESHAB POUDEL at his residence on Saturday morning. Excerpts:

As a former foreign minister, how do you see the state of Nepal-India relations today?

Following the recent revision of the Nepal-India Trade Treaty, in the eyes of the people, relations are not healthy. India has stepped back from the treaty signed in 1996, which contained the provision of automatic extension for another five years. The imposition of new clauses has not been taken easily by the people. We have to understand that Indians are sensitive to any Nepalese economic activities that encroach upon the Indian economy. Nepal has to appreciate such concerns. My question, however, is whether Nepalese products have affected the Indian economy. How can a few tons of ghee, wire or acrylic yarn affect India's vast economy? I am not a businessman, so my understanding may not be complete. The Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry have welcomed the treaty. Let's believe the new treaty is not going to hamper our economic progress.

At a time when bilateral relations are in such bad shape, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba is visiting India. What do you expect the outcome to be?

First, this is a very wrong time for our prime minister to visit India. I don't understand what the compulsions are for Prime Minister Deuba to visit India at this crucial juncture in Nepal. At a time when the country is facing several challenges such as the state of emergency, deployment of the army against the Maoists and discussions on amending the constitution, Prime Minister Deuba should have stayed home. The prime minister's presence in Nepal is very important. Secondly, have the prime minister and his aides done their homework properly before going to New Delhi? I heard at the Reporters Club a few days ago from the finance minister that one of the issues on the agenda would be security.

What do you think should be on the agenda?

The prime minister should focus on two things. It would be a great achievement for Nepal and Nepal-India relations if he can resolve the problem of inundation that affects the lives of millions of people. Border demarcation should be the other important issue. If Prime Minister Deuba could make some progress in these two areas, he would be making a great contribution. It would facilitate better understanding between the two countries.

The government argues that the visit is necessary for urgent discussions on some crucial issues, including the reported presence of Maoist leaders in India. Don't you think Prime Minister Deuba is justified in travelling to India to discuss security cooperation?

Prime Minister Deuba met Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in Nepal during the 11th SAARC summit a few months back. The Nepal government has already requested India not to allow Maoists to take shelter in India. We have also been talking in terms of the extradition treaty. Is it so important for the prime minister to go to India just to talk on these issues? I don't think so. These matters could have left to the home minister or the foreign minister. Moreover, the prime minister has not been specific about his purpose. What kind of cooperation from India does he want? If he wants arms and ammunition, does he know which kind and in which quantity? He should have done proper homework.

Are you suggesting that Nepal does not need Indian support to contain the Maoist?

No, no, that's not what I mean. Regulating the border, which we have been talking about for a long time, may be a solution. Formerly India accused us of allowing Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence to conduct anti-Indian activities on Nepalese soil. Now we have found out that the Maoists are not only taking shelter in India but also moving freely all over the country. It is reported that the Maoist rebels are being trained and getting arms from across the border. In the Mangalsen attack, there were reports of involvement of some Indians. It is in India's interest as well to curb the activities of the Maoists.

What are the reasons behind the frequent deterioration in relations between India and Nepal?

My own experience is that both countries have not been able to determine what their mutual interests are. Indians talk of security but they have not explained how Nepal has jeopardized Indian security? While we have to address Indian concerns, we should also emphasize that Nepal's security is also in jeopardy today. We have to talk about regulating the border.

Have you seen any changes in monitoring activities along the border?

India has for the first time deployed Central Police Force along the border, but it is yet to make it effective. Nepal also should do the same. Very close cooperation between two sides is required to curb illegal activities, including the transfer arms and ammunition, in order to suppress terrorism.

Would this guarantee India's security?

In the name of security, you are trying to create an umbrella that covers not only Nepal but extends further north. If this is so, then it will be very difficult. India has to agree that Nepal is a sovereign country between two giant nations. Nepal has to respond to Indian concerns as far as possible without in any way raising Chinese concerns. We cannot think of Indian sensitivities alone. The Nepalese and Indian governments must accept this reality in their mutual interest.

Indian officialdom and intellectuals regularly accuse Nepal of ignoring Indian security sensitivities and criticize Nepalese officials for playing the ëChina card'. How do you look at this?

Let them explain what kind of China card Nepal has played. How has Nepal ignored Indian security interests? We have to recognize that in 1950, when the Indo-Nepal treaty was being drafted, the situation was different. The communists were advancing towards Tibet but the region was not yet under Chinese control. There was apprehension about the expanding communist empire. In the 1960s when war broke out between India and China, India had reason to suspect China. As far as Nepal is concerned, we don't have any reason to suspect the Chinese. The border demarcation was done very smoothly and we did not lose any territory. In fact, we have gained. There was one incident in Mustang in which the Chinese shot our soldier. When they realized that it was a mistake, the Chinese apologized and provided compensation. After that, there has been no such incident along the border. Nepal considers China a good neighbor. We don't have grounds to suspect Chinese interference in Nepal. I don't think the Chinese will encroach upon Nepalese territory in order to create any problem for India.

Did you make efforts to convince the Indians about Nepal's stand?

As foreign minister, when I met then-Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, I raised the issue. I gave the example of Hitler, who had no respect for international law. But even he could not intervene in Switzerland and respected its neutrality. I asked Rajivji whether he thought China would intervene in India through Nepal even after the declaration of Nepal as a Zone of Peace. Would China still attack India through Nepalese territory? The Zone of Peace proposal was also in India's interest.

What was his response?

After listening to my arguments, Rajivji agreed to consider them. The thing is that as long as Indian leadership remains in the hands of people who are not forward looking, relations will suffer. The Indian bureaucracy has always found ways to circumvent the initiatives of politicians. I have personally seen how things Rajiv Gandhi explained to his foreign secretary and other officials were never seriously supported by South Block.

How do you see the political leaders' handling of relations?

Our leaders have made many blunders, which has created a more complex situation. We ourselves accepted the interpretation given by India on the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship treaty. Late communist leader Man MohanAdhikary, before visiting India as prime minister, participated in a discussion program where he talked about the "Indian security umbrella". At that time, I was alone in asking Man Mohanji why he was raising a broken umbrella thrown away by B.P. Koirala in 1960.

What actually happened in 1960?

When the Chinese killed a Nepalese soldier in Mustang, there was, naturally, an outcry throughout Nepal and India. Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru made a statement in the Indian parliament saying that any attack on Nepal and Bhutan would be tantamount to aggression on India. The next day Nepalese prime minister B.P. Koirala told the Nepalese media that it was up to Nepal to decide whether there was any aggression or not. Koirala said he did not know the status of Bhutan but reminded everyone of Nepal's sovereign status as a member of the United Nations. When Nehru was asked about B.P.'s remarks, he said the Nepalese prime minister's statement was absolutely right. B.P. Koirala threw away the so-called umbrella this way. During the Panchayat period prime minister Kirtinidhi Bista said and did so many similar things. As foreign minister, I reaffirmed this stand several times. Being a neighboring and friendly country, we have to assure Indians that we will not allow our territory to be used against them.

Can Nepal sign a defense pact with any of its neighbors?

I don't think it is easy. A sovereign country enters into a certain pact with another country if it feels endangered. As far as Nepal is concerned, we have only two neighbors. We have no threat from a third country. The threat for us is either from India or China. We have good friendship treaties with both India and China. We have no apprehension that either India or China would encroach upon our territory. So we don't need any defence pact. If we have a pact with one of the neighbors, that means you are apprehensive of aggression from the other. Since we are not apprehensive of aggression from either side, there is no need for a defence pact with any country. We can only have mutual understanding.

India considers Nepal a soft belly to its security. Following the overthrow of the Rana regime, Nepal has seen many difficulties in relations with India on the issue of security. What should Nepal do to convince Indians that our independent existence does not pose a threat to them?

In my book, I have suggested that we could give all kinds of assurance to India regarding the non-use of our territory against the country. But India has to accept that Nepal is a sovereign country and it has another important neighbor sensitive to its own defense. Because Tibet is a soft belly for China. We cannot do anything that touches Chinese sensitivities as much as we cannot do anything that touches Indian sensitivities. So, there has to be a balance.