Indians have always exploited Nepal

Mohan Gopal Khetan

In 1983, when I started making business with France, Nepal was a priority. Mr Chirac, then Mayor of Paris, was going to the Nepalese Embassy as and when he was invited to attend an official réceptions. But today, there is no more lobby supporting Nepalese interests in France. This lobby had been created by Maurice Herzog, famous for having climbed the Annapurna in 1959 and the one who lost his fingers due to frost bite, a member of the Olympic Committee...

This lobby had been created by Maurice Herzog, famous for becoming French sports minister after having climbed the Annapurna, member of the Olympic Committee and therefore in touch with the French business magnates. He used to solve any problem thanks to his relations at the French ministries and was active until two years back. Jacques Chirac is also still a good friend. However, in general the young generation in France is now not interested in Nepal.

Nevertheless, 125 years ago, at the time when the country was ruled by a cabinet of 26 Ranas and the British only had an Embassy in Nepal. Mohan Shamsher, the grandfather of Pashupati Shamsher Rana received the visit of a French delegation in a magnificent manner. This French envoy had received the instructions to give Nepal whatever it asked for. The Ranas thought that if they were friendly and accepted the gifts France had sent, the British might be annoyed. They thus decorated Kathmandu in a splendid way and the representative was brought with an elephant to the 26 Ranas who were wearing all splendid decorations and crowns. He was thus surprised and could not dare say Nepal was a poor country and propose assistance. He thus simply delivered a goodwill message. This shows how proud Nepal was at that time? Nowadays the situation is different as there is practically no government.

Whereas India is considered as a DEV-BHUMI-place of the Gods, Nepal is said to be the ultimate destination for Gods and Kings-the Tapo-Bhumi. Nepal is the country of stand and remains, to be chosen before leaving earth. Because of this, Nepal has been called the country of the Great Himalayas. However, as the British unfortunately used to apply a divide-and-rule policy to assert their power, Nepal was also cut down in size in 1816. At that time, the Sugauli treaty was signed, and others followed.

Until 1947, India had been very friendly with Nepal because it needed Nepalese Ghurkhas. During the 2nd World War, for example, when the Japanese bombed Calcutta, and were into the jungles of neighboring Assam, India extensively used Nepalese forces. However, Nepal’s contributions have been forgotten after. Moreover, the British who knew how to divide and rule trained today’s Indian bureaucrats, and so did they for Nepal. This British legacy is still being practised by today’s Indian government which is problematic for Nepal. Actually, if the relations between Nepal and India remain as they are nowadays, India will loose the strength it has collected for 5000 years in the past. In Nepal, once the Maoist problem will be solved, things will be fine, as Nepal is a small country, therefore easy to manage. On the contrary, India is big and has no control over its own territory. Like the USA, it can fight but cannot sleep peacefully. The best thing for India is therefore to make the head clear: if someone has headache, he cannot do anything. The Himalayas can be considered as the head of India. Thus if this region, read the head, is disturbed, whole of India cannot work. If however, the head is prosperous and peaceful, there will not be any problem of water, electricity or food.

However, it seems that this has not been considered by India Look, Nepal gets 1% of Indian attention, Pakistan gets 99%. There is clearly a problem of diplomacy, as India has clearly not yet understood the importance of Nepal, for example, the way the Nepalese Prime Minister has been treated during this visit being only one more proof of this. But what Indians fail to understand is that if they make the Nepal Prime Minister appear weak, and thus hasten its fall, a new Prime Minister will have to be trained, which is counter productive. The Maoist problem which is also threatening India, is being not taken care of is what only third class diplomats can explain.

The controversies over the treaties have yet no meaning. The 1950 Treaty is actually like a Constitution, a permanent agreement between the two countries. If it is followed properly there will be no trouble as the treaty ensures free trade and free movement. It is the single document that recognises Nepal as a sovereign nation. The problem is that India has spoiled it, read the 1950 treaty, each time it wanted something in its favor: instead of amending the treaty, only letters or MoUs have been exchanged. Indians have always exploited Nepal, and not any good project funded by India can be found surviving. India has spoiled Nepalese railway system, as it has done with everything in the country. There is a need to go back to the treaty, but not in a reciprocal manner. Free movement should be, for example, granted for Nepalese, but not for Indians, as Nepal cannot sustain the uninterrupted flow of the exodus from across the border. The border should therefore be properly regulated, and Indians could come to Nepal, getting ID cards but not dare to seek the Nepalese nationality. However, it has not been made because the administration is very weak. But anyway it is not possible to deviate from the 1950 Treaty, because it is the only document in which India has recognized Nepal as a sovereign and independent country. The treaty should therefore remain the Bible for Nepal-India relations under which further discussions have to be made. Only in this framework problems will be solved.

The obstacles have been until now on the Indian side, as Indians created hindrances with vision, whereas Nepal has only created problems without vision. A recent example is the tax on oil products India has put just before the visit of the Nepalese PM, only in order to have a card to play.

Actually in 1953 a French expert was invited in India. Following his advice, the first hydropower project was built up in Punjab with the help of France. Unfortunately, at that time the King signed treaty for the Koshi and the Gandak. In India, due to the corruption in Bihar, the canals were built against the rules and are now all dry. They have been useful neither to India nor Nepal. Agreements have moreover been signed for other rivers but none of the projects have started. Then how is it possible to say that Nepal is to be blamed? Nepal is suffering, even if side by side India is suffering 20 times more. One fateful day in Bihar, floods will provoke internal revolution. However, India is responsible of the torment in Nepal. They have created the Maoist problem; they should thus now withdraw their hand. The troubles have indeed started in 1966, later it spread in Nepal and has the potential to spread all over the region. Maoists are supposed to have been funded by Indians and extremists from the international community.

The 1950 treaty should now be considered as an ideal document and both countries should go by it. India should follow its spirit and for a few years not try to demand reciprocity from Nepal. The relations between USA and Canada should in this regard serve as an example: hundred years ago, there was actually no food in Canada, whereas the latter is now prosperous. China is also helping Tibet, which is becoming a trade place. Prospects are thus substantial and it would be promising venture to strengthen ties with China. However, the point is nowadays no more in balancing Indian and Chinese powers. The decrease in European Aid to Nepal after the collapse of the USSR has made it clear.

The hope is now that the new generation of Indian politicians, under the guidance of the old, will help to make Nepal prosperous. Nevertheless, if they behave as they recently did with the Nepalese Prime Minister, things will turn badly. Convincing is good, but corrupting is bad, and what the PM was offered, to me, is not aid but bribe. Indians should instead be open hearted in helping Nepal. Regarding the Maoist problem in Nepal, it will be solved, as everyday has an end, and everyday has sunshine. It is only a question of time. However, India is so big and unmanaged that the security problems and fights between states are not close to an end. Nonetheless, if they make improvements, Nepal and India will both develop. Only then, all the concepts related to regional cooperation will be applicable.

(Amandine is a French student of MA Political Science, FRANCE, now an intern at the telegraph weekly)

Headline | Opinion | National | Dateline | 5 Question  | Editorial | Letter | 2nd Impression | International | Past