There has been a lot of discussion about the ‘unforgivable’ breach of diplomatic protocol during the nine-hour visit of Indian Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid last Tuesday. The likes of Baburam Bhattarai, Sher Bahadur Deuba, Jhalanath Khanal and Pushpa Kamal Dahal, all former prime ministers, who lined up outside Dwarika’s Hotel to ‘pay their respects’ to the visitor from the south have come under withering criticism for ‘belittling’ Nepal’s image. [break]
Bhattarai was forced to Tweet that there had indeed been ‘a mistake’. Other top leaders who were in Dwarika’s on the day have defended themselves citing security reasons: apparently taking Khurshid around town to meet so many leaders in such a narrow timeframe would have been a security nightmare. Khurshid is believed to have completed the humiliation of Nepali leaders by responding to a query by saying that he had not asked anyone to come see him.
So, did our top leaders, especially our respected former prime ministers, make an unforgivable mistake by meeting a ‘junior’ visiting dignitary by the sidelines? Yes, it pinches Nepalis who are drip-fed on anti-India nationalism all their lives to witness their political leaders pay deep homage to just about anyone from the Indian political establishment. But a sense of proportion is warranted. First, the Foreign Minister of the third biggest economy in the world and a growing global powerhouse is no Average Joe. His visit to Nepal, though largely symbolic, was significant in diplomatic terms.
It shows that Nepal is India’s foreign policy priority and that it is not ready to concede any more ground in Nepal to China. But make no mistake: although Nepal is one of India’s priorities, it is not the priority. Far from it. It gives far more importance to its ties with the US, China, Pakistan, even Afghanistan, each of which is a meaningful relationship, not just for India, but in the global context as well. India’s traditional roti beti bonds with Nepal, with which it shares a 1,700-km long open border, is often played up to emphasize closeness between the two countries. But India knows (and Nepalis would do well to remember) that there are no permanent friends or enemies in international relations.
Irrespective of the political affiliations and national statures of Nepali politicians, each one of them is eager to cultivate close ties with India. Given New Delhi’s heft in Nepal, it would be politically suicidal not to. It is a different matter that they tend to let on about it on inconvenient occasions. Whether we like it or not, in diplomacy, there cannot be a ‘reciprocal relationship’ between clearly unequal partners, especially if the two are next door neighbors. Everywhere, it is the bigger and more powerful neighbor which dictates terms: the US in case of Mexico, Brazil in case of Uruguay, Russia in case of former Soviet republics and India in case of Bhutan, Bangladesh—and Nepal. The acknowledgement of this hard truth should be the first step in shaping Nepal’s emerging identity.
Undeniably, our former prime ministers breached established diplomatic protocol. But was the knee-jerk reaction to their faux pas justified? Apparently, they ‘humiliated’ the country, and ‘sold Nepal’s honor’. Is Nepal’s identity so vulnerable that it can be traded by a bunch of power-hungry politicians? Is this rather not reflective of our deep-seated inferiority complex vis-à-vis India? Khurshid’s trip, we are afraid, has raised all the wrong questions pertaining to Nepali nationhood.
Related story
Cambodia opposition leader jailed 27 years for treason
-1200x560-1781083488.webp)
