National 4 (Spotlight Weekly)

“Violence Is Not The Answer To The Problems Which Nepal Faces”

— Shyam Saran

Shyam Saran, Indian ambassador spoke to media on July 9, on the eve of his departure to New Delhi upon completion of his tenure in Kathmandu. Saran will take up the responsibility as the Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi. Excerpts of his statement and his response to media queries:

Before assuming office, I was always aware that Indo-Nepal ties were unique, but having seen the relationship first-hand and at close quarters, I can say with full conviction that India and Nepal have a relationship which no two other countries in the world enjoy. I have travelled widely in Nepal and have made many friends from all across Nepali society. Goodwill and friendly feeling towards India, in my opinion, outshines any other sentiment among the people of Nepal. Our relations are not confined to government links alone. Close links between our people at every level of society are really what defines India-Nepal relations.

I sincerely believe that there is no issue in India-Nepal relations which cannot be dealt with successfully given the friendship and goodwill we have for each other. When you have a relationship as extensive as between India and Nepal, there may be points of friction or difference of opinion. These should not be exaggerated. Differences on this or that issue, should not overshadow the overall, positive and friendly ties between our countries. Media has an important role to play in this regard.

There are some sections of people in Nepal who harbour suspicions of India’s intentions towards this country and tend to see a conspiracy behind every Indian move. I have tried to allay such suspicions to the best of my ability. One message that I have given to the people of Nepal is that Nepal is India-open and not land-locked; that Nepal should look at India as an opportunity to be exploited to its advantage, not as a threat that needs to be confronted. A second message, I have conveyed at every opportunity is that the problem of Maoist insurgency Nepal is facing, is also a threat to India’s security. It is a problem that does not respect our national boundary. Our security interests are today interlinked in a manner which is unprecedented. It is only by working together in an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence that we can overcome this challenge. On the eve of my departure from Nepal, I would like to once again reiterate these important messages to the people of Nepal.

I have consistently referred to the huge potential that the Indian market provides through size, and proximity to Nepal. The world is discovering India but the Nepalese are best placed to take advantage of the opportunity in their neighbourhood. India’s out-bound tourist traffic can be a goldmine for Nepal. Similarly, if you develop world-class educational and medical institutions, you can attract large number of Indians. Indian industry can be attracted to cater to both the local market and exports. We would welcome Nepal’s participation in our success. We are open to Nepal.

A politically stable, economically prosperous and confident Nepal is what India wants most. We have always supported all constitutional forces and the democratic political process in Nepal. We continue to believe that constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy are the pillars of the Nepalese State. We hope that the Maoists can join the political mainstream abandoning violence and accepting the discipline of democracy.

During my stay, I have seen significant changes in the Nepalese media, which has consolidated the gains that emerged from the democratic movement of 1990. The average Nepali is pleased about the choice and affordability of the media options available today. With a free and vibrant media as is available here, democracy will be well served. I extend to all of you my very best wishes in your endeavours ahead.

On the political situation in Nepal

India has consistently stated that constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy are the two pillars of Nepal’s polity. These also provide basis for finding a way out of the current political impasse. The constitutional forces must come together to face the challenge posed by the Maoist insurgency. Any confrontation between the monarchy and the political parties can only benefit the Maoist movement. Similarly, political parties should also unite together to deal with a serious national crisis. As a democracy, India naturally desires to see the strengthening of democratic values and institutions in Nepal.

On the Nepalese Maoists

India’s policy is clear and consistent. We are against the terrorist activities of the Nepalese Maoists. India has gone on record to say that these terrorist activities are a threat for both Nepal and India. We have urged the Maoists to abandon violence and enter the national mainstream as a legitimate political entity, take part in free and fair elections to seek the people’s mandate. Violence is not the answer to the social and economic problems which Nepal faces and which the Maoists claim they want to redress.

On a military solution to the Maoist problem

India’s own experience in dealing with insurgency clearly indicates that a military solution is neither probable nor even possible. The armed forces can only help create a space within which political process can be activated for a negotiated solution. We believe the same applies to the current situation in Nepal.

On international mediation in Nepal

Nepal has the ability and confidence to tackle its own problems. The international community of course has a role and place in this – which is to provide all support to Nepal in this crucial period and create a conducive environment to enable Nepal to best deal with its problems.

On the Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty

Good progress has been made in the talks to draw up these agreements. We are hopeful that both agreements will be finalised at an early date

On the Bhutanese refugees’ crisis

The Bhutanese refugee problem involves two friends of India and is really a bilateral issue. Commendable progress had been made in the bilateral discussions between Nepal and Bhutan, but these were interrupted for reasons that are well-known. We hope that there will be an early resumption of the bilateral process leading to an early and amicable settlement. India’s goodwill with both countries will always be available to facilitate the process.

On the Open Border

The open border is a very unique aspect of our relations and these borders sustain day-to-day contacts of a large number of the citizens of both our countries. It is true that while this arrangement is a boon for many, it may also be misused by a minority who are a threat to law and order in both countries. The requirement here is for a more scientific management of the movements at the border and not for closing them. India and Nepal have begun work in this regard.

On the Kalapani Controversy

An institutional mechanism is in place to address all border related issues. The boundary demarcation work is being monitored by the Joint Technical Committee (JTC). The JTC is mandated to resolve all border related issues including Kalapani.

On the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship

The India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1950 established a framework for the unique ties between the two countries. However, Nepal-India relations are traditional and firmly rooted in history and geography and our age-old cultural ties. We have already had one round of Foreign Secretary level talks on whether the Treaty needs to be updated or amended in any manner. We are prepared to continue this dialogue.

On Commercial and Trade irritants

India is by far Nepal’s biggest trade partner. It is inevitable that some isolated problems arise from time to time. There is a well-established bilateral mechanism to resolve differences, which has been quite effective and useful. We should rely on such agreed procedures to solve problems rather than deal with them through the media. Indian businesses also have their own list of issues which we also encourage sorting out through such established mechanism.

On Indian External Affairs Minister, Mr. Natwar Singh’s Visit

There is a tradition of exchange of regular high-level visits with Nepal. A prime priority of the new government in India is to further strengthen relations with our neighbours. The recent visit was the first expression of this priority. It was a goodwill visit by the External Affairs Minister to understand the situation in Nepal and to interact with His Majesty, the Prime Minister of Nepal and also seek the views of other prominent political leaders. This visit re-emphasised our commitment to support the people of Nepal in their hour of difficulty.

On India’s security cooperation with Nepal

We have been cooperating with HMGN in its efforts at strengthening the capabilities of the RNA to deal with the insurgency. This has included supply of arms, ammunition and other equipment, as requested by the Nepalese Government. Exchange of information and close cooperation between the security agencies of our two countries is also part of this support.

On Nepal’s trade deficit with India:

Benefits from bilateral economic relations should not be viewed in a compartmentalised manner. Apart from trade in goods, one has also take into account trade in services, remittances from Nepalese employed in India, pension disbursement by India to ex-servicemen and income from India-origin tourism. If these are taken into account, it will indicate a completely different picture significantly in favour of Nepal.

On Mahali Sagar:

There is no construction of embankment on the century-old Mahali Sagar reservoir. A new gated-escape is being constructed to replace a damaged gated escape on the Indian side after seeking the approval of competent Nepalese authority in December 2002. The new gated-escape will not change the height or the extent of the reservoir. In fact, the design of the new gated-escape incorporates the request of the Nepalese side for an enhanced discharge of 102 cumecs of water. Because of enhanced discharge and no change in reservoir level, the new gated-escape would not cause any increased pondage in Nepal. Currently, there is no construction activity at Mahali Sagar. Decks have not been placed on all the bays and gates have not been installed in the escape. There is, therefore, no question of any inundation being caused by the new gated-escape.

On Raisawal Khurd Lotan:

The decision to construct Rasiawal Khurd Lotan embankment was taken by the Uttar Pradesh Government due to increased flooding in over 80 villages in Siddarthanagar district in India because the HMGN had raised the height of the Bangain-Thumba road close to the border in Nepal. However, based on concerns expressed by HMGN, the construction of the embankment was stopped after less than 20% of the planned stretch had been completed. A joint survey by Government of India and HMGN in 2002 established that the road is, on an average, 1.4 meters above the surrounding ground level and does not possess sufficient culverts or cross-draining structures, and, further, that the level of the constructed portion of the Rasiawal Khurd Lotan embankment was much lower than the Marchawar area. For these reasons, the incomplete Rasiawal Khurd Lotan embankment cannot cause any flooding in the Marchawar region in Nepal. On the contrary, Indian villages continue to suffer from inundation caused by the raising of the Bangain-Thumba road.

On Laxmanpur Barrage:

India has offered to construct embankments on Rapti River in Nepal. The Nepalese side is yet to provide Government of India with technical details on alignments for the construction of the embankments.

On Sikta Irrigation Project

India has conveyed that that the construction of Sikta Irrigation Project in isolation by HMGN would adversely affect the Utraula and Dumeriaganj Canal Projects as also the Saryu Canal Projects downstream in India. The Sikta Irrigation Project was conceived as part of the Bhalubang Multi-purpose Project, which includes a storage dam at Bhalubhang with a barrage 80 kilometers downstream on Rapti river. The Embassy has reiterated that the development of Sikta Irrigation Project could be considered if the storage dam at Bhalubhang is constructed simultaneously, which would ensure availability of water during non-monsoon period for the Indian operation. Embassy of India has requested HMGN not to proceed with the execution of the Sikta Irrigation Project till both Governments have reached an agreement on the subject.

On the proposed river-linking project in India

The river-linking project is still being examined in India. We will consult Nepal when this becomes necessary.

Some political parties and the Maoists are calling for a Constituent Assembly. In your opinion, is this good for Nepal or will it lead to destruction?

In the internal political situation of Nepal, there is no need for India to get involved at the micro level. We have always taken a consistent position that there are two sources of stability in Nepal - multi-party democracy and Constitutional Monarchy. Their role is clearly given in the Nepalese Constitution, which was adopted by consensus. For this reason, India has always maintained that there should be understanding between the institution of Monarchy and political parties. There are various reasons why both these institutions are very important. We have also often maintained that the political parties too must have unity among themselves to face the national crisis. In this context, a multi-party government is important and we are happy to see that the first step in this direction has been taken. We hope that the multi-party government will perhaps, become more multi-party in character in future. There is now a close working together between the Monarchy and the present Government. We feel that a stage has been reached to now face the national problem of Maoist insurgency. It was very important to have a broad front, a broad national consensus to successfully deal with this problem of Maoist insurgency. We have always maintained that violence is not a legitimate means to attain political ends. We have urged that violence should be abandoned and that the Maoist movement should enter the national mainstream as a legitimate political entity. The Maoist should take their chances at the elections and get the mandate of the people, that is the way forward. If the peace process can move in that direction, I think it will be a credible peace process. That is our hope, that is our expectation.

What are the chances of India of helping Nepal by sending Indian troops? Is this an option?

This is not an option which is open. Also for the simple reason that sending in troops does not mean that the problem can be solved. India has stated quite clearly that this is a problem which cannot be eliminated by the military means alone. It is a problem which also has economic and social roots. You need to deal with this challenge on a number of fronts. What can India do to help? India can and is helping by strengthening the capabilities of your security forces by providing equipment, military hardware, training and intelligence exchange between the two countries. The result of all this in the recent past is all there for you to see. If more support is required, we are willing to provide that.

We have also deployed Special Security Bureau Forces along the border and increased monitoring capacity so that movement across the border by insurgents can be controlled. These are the various ways in which India is helping. Sending Indian troops to Nepal on this matter is definitely not an option.

There is a feeling that G.P. Koirala has begun a dialogue with the Maoists during his recent visit to Delhi. Your comments please.

As far as I am aware, there was no occasion for G.P. Koirala to meet with Maoists during his recent visit to India. We have made it very clear that Indian soil must not be used for such purposes.

Is there any special strategy apart from the ongoing security cooperation to deal with the Maoist insurgency, especially on the border areas?

As I mentioned to you, there is deployment of SSB, but that is not all. For example, we have agreed that all along the India-Nepal border we will set up what are known as Border Management Committees. In each border district on either side, there will be these Border Management Committees which will be headed by a District Magistrate on the Indian side and the CDO on the Nepali side. These Committees comprise not only of the administrative personnel but also include security personnel, custom officials and people dealing with development matters on both sides of the border. The idea is that on a regular basis these Border Committees should meet and try to resolve whatever cross-border problem that may arise. I think you would have seen certain report in the newspapers that these committees have, in fact, met in the recent past and have undertaken jointly together certain security measures to prevent the kind of criminal activities or insurgent activities which sometimes take place across the border.

Does India oppose international and UN mediation on the Maoist issue even when the Maoist themselves have talked of UN mediation?

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that India does not accept or India rejects anything. I said that it is not an issue that India can decide upon. You are a sovereign independent country, it is for you to decide whether you want UN mediation? Whether you want to deal with it yourself?. How does India come into the picture? What I mentioned was that India was willing to give all what that is required by Nepal to face this challenge. What kind of support India is able to provide, it is for Nepal to tell us. What do you want India to do? How do you want India to assist in this process? We will go by what Nepal wants. We will go as far as Nepal wants us to go. But whether or not there should be UN or international mediation, it is not India’s place to tell Nepal what it should or should not do.

Is it true that the Extradition Treaty between India and Nepal is stuck on the issue of third country nationals?

On the Extradition Treaty many of the pending issues have been resolved in negotiations. The few remaining pending issues, now that there is a government here, can be focussed on and resolved in the coming few months. There is no reason why we should not be able to sign the text of the Treaty. On whether third country or own country nationals should be extradited or not, these are issues on which we have to take a practical stand and not an ideological approach. This is something which affects both countries. Take for example, third country nationals–India has always said that it will not allow its territory to be used for hostile action against Nepal. Nepal has publicly also made the same assurance, that it will not allow its territory to be used for hostile activities against India. If this principle is accepted in some way in the Treaty, I think we are quite comfortable with that. As far as own country nationals are concerned - as you are all aware, if a Nepali commits a murder or robbery in India and then runs away into Nepal, or sometimes an Indian may also commit a crime here and run away to India, should then activities like these not be controlled? Should not people like this be punished? Should there be ideological problems in dealing with this issue? I think we have to be practical and take into account that these are practical problems which we face almost on a daily basis. I will not take an ideological position–that no third country nationals, no own country nationals. As long as there is a Treaty which permits us in a practical way to deal with the issues which we face on a day-to-day basis, we would be quite happy with that.