In the past, bilateral relations between Nepal and India were generally based on the so-called "sphere of influence" doctrine where the large and powerful nation basically outlined the boundary conditions for the smaller nation. After the Sugauli treaty with the British over two centuries ago, the sphere of influence doctrine has gradually become the basis of Nepal-India relationship. During the colonial period the British envoy in Kathmandu kept a close eye on the political developments in Nepal and did not interfere so long as affairs here didn't challenge British interests.Sphere of Influence
After the independence of India and the rise of communist China under Mao, the geopolitical situation in Nepal has changed dramatically but India has generally failed to recognize this reality when it comes to its relationship with smaller countries in South Asia. When Jawaharlal Nehru became the prime minster of India after its independence, he faced two conflicting approaches on foreign policy, especially in South Asia. First, the foreign policy establishment in India viewed Nepal and other smaller South Asian nations with colonial eyes. In this thinking, small nations in South Asia were under the Indian sphere of influence even though they were sovereign and independent.
Second, Nehru was also a liberal scholar-politician and held ideas about sovereign equality and mutually beneficial cooperation between India and her smaller neighbors as the new norm for international relations. It was hard to reconcile these two views and often the second perspective promoted by the bureaucracy continued to dominate. The liberal rhetoric projected ideas of justice and equality between nations but in practice the colonial hangover remained strong.
The sphere of influence doctrine that normally defined relationship between a powerful big neighbor and a small country implied two things. First, the smaller country was expected to consult or submit to the interest of the bigger country in economic and political decision. Second, if the smaller country tried to cross the Rubicon, the bigger country would not hesitate to "teach a lesson" and that could mean trade sanctions to direct or indirect intervention depending on geo-strategic reality and perceived necessity of observing prevailing norms of international relations. It is in this context that we need to analyze the unofficial economic blockade and unwarranted restriction on Indo-Nepal trade and transit.
The unofficial blockade India has imposed on Nepal is most visible at Birgunj, the entry point for over 50 percent of Nepal's imports. Protestors staged a dharna in the no-man's land between the two countries. When the Nepali police wanted to evict them, the protestors ran towards India and then start throwing stones on the police on the Nepali side. Amazingly, the Indian security forces watched this whole show quietly and thus encouraged the agitators. It provides excuse to India to stop supplying petroleum products since there is 'no security' in Nepal. Naturally, the shortage of fuel and raw material has continued to get worse. Hundreds of factories have been closed and thousands of laborers rendered jobless.
Commercial farming that was gaining momentum in different parts of the country has been badly hurt because inputs are in short supply and motorized transport is not easily available due to lack of diesel. Development works have come to a standstill. It is reported that death rate in hospitals has increased in the absence of gas, diesel and life-saving drugs. The national economy battered by a devastating earthquake only a few months ago is facing a much bigger crisis today.
SAARC framework
For smaller countries in the region India riding roughshod over Nepal indicates a foreign policy framework that goes against the fundamentals of SAARC. India's willingness to impose an unofficial blockade conveys the message that the SAARC region is under the Indian sphere of influence and any country in the region that believes otherwise will face consequences. It seems that the whole idea of SAARC—often been viewed with suspicion by India as it may provide space for dialogue for smaller states in the region—will be increasingly irrelevant in the future.
Smaller countries in the region as well as other nations around the world are watching with great interest the Indian reaction to Nepal's attempt to manage its politics independently and democratically, while it remains in good terms with both India and China. They do not like what they see and some of them including Bangladesh and European Union have already expressed their concern over the blockade. However, a big segment of Indian foreign policy establishment still seems to believe in the sphere of influence doctrine and all that it has implied in the past as still the most effective tool to protect Indian interests. This strategy needs a review.
South Asia is not an isolated island in Asia. Apart from India, China, with an economy over three times the size of India, is another emerging regional great power. China is already a global force to reckon with. In South Asia, this is reflected in the dramatic rise in Chinese trade and investment in all countries including India.
As emerging great powers both China and India share a relationship that is both cooperative as well as competitive. In this scenario, India has a built-in advantage in South Asia because of history, geography as well as civilizational commonalities. An emerging India with a growing economy has a historic opportunity to leverage these advantages and forge a relationship of shared prosperity with all countries in the region. This seems to be the logical way to claim the leadership of the region. Under Modi government, many thought India would make a decisive move in this direction. Its new focus on connectivity, free trade and "neighborhood first" doctrine generated hope. Unfortunately, if India's present attitude towards Nepal is any indication, the opportunity could be wasted.
It seems India still views the old-fashioned sphere of influence doctrine as the main conceptual foundation of its foreign policy as is evident in the unofficial blockade of a friendly neighbor already battered by a destructive earthquake. However, the application of this crude version of the Monroe doctrine expounded by an American president in the 19th century is bound to exacerbate bilateral tensions and lead to unnecessary complexities. For a nation aspiring for permanent membership of UN Security Council, its current foreign policy doctrine will hardly help its aspiration for global leadership.
A safe landing
For those of us in Nepal who have worked hard to forge Indo-Nepal relationship based on shared prosperity and concerns, the blunt and somewhat hegemonistic display of India that aims to punish and humiliate Nepali people is both unfortunate and disappointing. It will not achieve the desired capitulation. As a nation that remained independent when most of Asia was under the yoke of colonialism Nepal will not surrender its right to make its own decisions based on democratic legitimacy and dialogue with all national stakeholders.
Common sense is the need of the hour. Political leaders in both countries should think about the consequences of the present policies and act before it is too late, and in line with our mutual long term interests of shared prosperity and concern. There needs to be a sober assessment of present follies on both sides so as to agree on a future course of action that goes beyond the sphere of influence doctrine.
The author is a former foreign minister and senior leader of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party
Related story
Nepotism exposed in Bhangaha Municipality: Employees secure job...
