Nitty-gritty’s of Nepal-India ties

The unprecedented courage that the Nepalese Prime minister exhibited in front of the Nepalese media the other day that he would put all the genuine Nepali grievances with full force come what may in front of his Indian counterpart for their corrections was simply unexpected but yet encouraging. However, whether he would collect the needed unconquerable courage to do so while in Delhi is important. Talking tall for the Nepal’s internal consumption to bag accolades is different and convincing the India’s seasoned leaders at a face to face interaction is perhaps totally different. This notwithstanding, Prime minister Koirala’s fresh mood seen prior to what has been described as agenda less Delhi pilgrimage at least gives one the impression that this time the Nepalese chief of the executive would frankly tell his Indian counter part that if Nepal-India relation were to attain a new height, it would warrant India’s sincere effort as well much the same way as Nepal has been doing it unilaterally.

Koirala’s blunt assertions that he would this time in Delhi turn the entire pages of Nepal-India ties beginning 1950 and press the other side to effect a change in the bilateral ties suited to the changed context as it stands today, regionally and globally both is also fortunately a thing totally backed by the national population save a few interested political activists for obvious reasons. Koirala’s assertion is correct in the sense that much water has flown over Bagmati and Yamuna since the two neighbors signed a treaty of Peace and Friendship some five decades back which from the day one came under scathing attack from a sizeable chunk of the population of Nepal for known reasons. The treaty, to recall, according to the incumbent Nepal’s foreign minister Chakra Prasad Bastola was an "unequal one" warranting suitable changes in the contexts of the rapid changes seen in the communications and the technological sectors after signing of the treaty in question. Bastola’s courage in dubbing the treaty as an unequal one too is surprising, as he is the one sitting foreign minister who has reiterated such blunt comments. Should this mean that his days are numbered?

If the treaty of the 1950 has become a permanent irritant in Nepal-India ties, then there were a number of issues that too demand early corrections. For example to name a few, the border encroachment; Bhutanese refugee; the Laxaman pur dam and the daddy them of all being the Kalapani imbroglio which all put together have kept hostage the Nepal-India ties for long time. However, the speedy solutions to these pressing Nepalese demands have for reasons unknown to us been summarily delayed by the other side which have to a greater extent led the people here to suspect India’s real intentions which in effect might not be that as suspected here by some quarters. The problem between India and Nepal is that we have all along been postponing the problems, which needed urgent settlements. This time as usual, a few high level committees could be formed to continue the never ending bilateral dialogues giving a false impression to the people on either side of the border and our ties suddenly take a new height and that every thing were on track. But the reality would be entirely different.

Why India wishes to linger the bilateral problems is unpredictable. Why India tells us to go bilaterally on matters of Bhutanese refugee issue when she is clearly a party to the whole affair? Why India is not interested in effecting certain changes in the controversial 1950 treaty as suggested by Nepal and keep the other contracting party in good humor and benefit? Why the Kalapani issue is not decided once and for all so that the issue does not become a permanent feature plaguing the bilateral ties? Why India prefers to encroach Nepali lands and postpones its verification processes at the earliest so that people on either side of the border could live in peace and harmony with each other? And above all, why the gigantic Indian media at regular intervals makes it a point to initiate a hate Nepal campaign and wishes to malign the prestige of this country abroad? These are some points whose answers must be searched this time. However, Nepali media too has come of age. A section could have retorted with equal force the Indian media’s wild allegations that have almost become a regular phenomenon in the annals of Nepal-India ties. However, what could be safely said that if India treats Nepal as her real and genuine friend, a similar reciprocity she could undoubtedly expect from this country. A strong and prosperous India is in no way detrimental to Nepal and her interests and vice versa. For this the South Block must change its old mindset and then look at the surprising results. Is India really prepared to watch this phenomenon? Perhaps not because it believes in coercive diplomacy and the Nepalese people possess disgust for that in whatever form that gets exhibited.

It is time that India understands the Nepal sentiments and acts accordingly. In doing so India will benefit in so many ways. Reiterating only the traditional bonds and this and that will perhaps not work now. To win over Nepali hearts India must change its hearts at the first place. A magnanimous India is what the Nepalese people wish to see in a concrete shape. Or else the problems will remain intact albeit the statements after the conclusion of each such visits will continue to be-fool the public on either sides of the border. Lack of trust among each other too has its role in compounding the bilateral ties.

Headline | National | 5 Question  | 2nd Impression | International | Past |