A wide range of topics was covered, which included, the guiding principles and the development of federalism in Nepal’s new constitution; logical conclusion of the peace process (developing political consensus, India’s support to the peace process, and integration and rehabilitation of insurgents); India-Nepal relations (security concerns and anti-India sentiments in Nepal); leveraging economic and trade relations for Nepal’s development comprising of the ways to take advantage of the 1950 Treaty and accelerated growth in Indian economy; removing trade barriers through the trade treaty of 2009, (infrastructure for cross border trade); and finally, creating a better environment for investment in Nepal.
The security concerns, anti-Indian sentiment in Nepal and bilateral trade and investment opportunities were the priority issues for intellectual discourse. Since the 1950 Treaty was linked very softly with border encroachment affairs, the entire gamut of structural change in Nepal, in the last six decades, concerning socio-economic and political scenario did not, however, come out categorically during the meeting. It was felt that in some cases, the legal provision in the Treaty and the actual practice remains poles apart. Especially after the endorsement of Comprehensive Peace Accord in 2006, there is a loud voice against the 1950 Treaty in Nepal. Therefore, the available alternatives such as either to continue accepting it or amending, restructuring, or even eliminating it, should be explored.
SECURITY
Security issues determine the tenor and content of Nepal-India relations. Except globally found lapses in the border at both the sides, there is no trace to claim that Nepal has allowed its territory to be used for anti-India activities. However, the perception about Nepal not being adequately appreciative of India´s sensitivities has caused worries in Nepal.
The Hindustan Times, dated February 16, 1952 writes, Nehru had said, in foreign policy and defense both countries have common interests. However, as close relationship and collaboration on matters of defense and foreign affairs between the two countries are specifically and distinctly stated in the 1950 Treaty itself, it is possible that when words giving multiple meanings are used, different interpretations emerge.
The purchase of land and property in each others’ country as provisioned in the 1950 Treaty, can also escalate misunderstanding any time between now and post-capital account convertibility under the reform program in future. For example, Nepali citizens can buy property in India, but the immigration act of Nepal clearly stipulates that foreigners including Indians cannot own lands and properties in Nepal. As the existing norm of owning property is differently practiced, it indicates the fact the Treaty, in practice, was never functional.
The security concerns had different dimensions. Majority of the Indian scholars seem to believe that although India’s commitment to empowering Madhes is still a priority, they do not appear happy with the likelihood of Madhes-based parties’ possible alliance with the Maoists by joining the coalition front. The Indian scholars seem to believe that the CPN –UML-led government will be highly influenced by the Maoists and as a result, the Madhes-based parties, too, would come under their (Maoists) influence. On China’s role, the frequency of the visits of high-level Chinese delegation to Nepal was of course, a matter of concern to India; however, they were not aware of any "evidence" that China was overtly interfering in Nepal´s affairs and hence any damage that it would do to Nepal-India relations.
ANTI-INDIAN SENTIMENT
Although the Nepali participants could not explain logically why there is anti-Indian sentiments in Nepal, the issue nonetheless needs to be looked into. There were several alternative views from different stakeholders representing diverse constituencies. Some said, “Yes, anti-Indian sentiment in Nepal is real”; whereas the others stated, “it will be injustice to generalize that all Nepalis are anti-Indian.” Some went on to say, “there were some interest groups both internal and external, who thought India’s increased involvement will undermine their influence and therefore injected anti-Indian feelings into Nepali nationalism to serve their vested interests.” The general view was rather interesting, which considered, “it is a fashion, a sense of satisfaction to justify the fact that you are nationalist”. But the big question that remained unanswered was “does one have to be anti-Indian to remain pro-Nepali?”
Constraints and opportunities between the nations vary, indicating the fact that the interests of the two countries may vary. Therefore, the uniqueness of existing cooperation between India and Nepal can be strengthened and appreciated only when the two nations clearly define the term “national interests” based on the aforementioned fundamentals.
INDIAN COOPERATION
Putting political factors aside, India’s assistance to Nepal’s development is found contributing directly toward socio-economic transformation as evident from various projects with socio-economic importance and human face. For example, assistance in education is in fact an investment in human resource development, which by theory, leads to employment opportunities, improves productivity and increases national income. This is where a reliable quantitative research is needed to properly understand the nature and quality of Indian aid to Nepal.
The new trade agreement of 2009 intends to enable traders at both sides to enjoy benefits such as elimination of non-tariff barriers and other facilities. The treaty has the provision that Nepali traders who trade in Indian currency will enjoy excise and all other facilities as enjoyed by traders using convertible currency. The provision also ensures that India recognizes Nepal’s standard certification and upgrade Nepal’s laboratory through India’s assistance. Furthermore, exporters of Nepali tea, cardamom, ginger and other agricultural products will not need to present quality certification from Indian laboratories in Kolkata or Patna. The new treaty, has the provision for allowing bilateral trade via air cargo and four other land routes.
With regards to Indian investment in Nepal, the Indian participants had deep concern over security and the unresolved issues of power and workers. Their major concerns were unauthorized trade into India from Nepal. The Nepali participants focused on trade and transit facility by unfolding obstructions and complying with trade facilitation measures. Business community’s interest was connecting Birgunj to the Singhabad-Rohanpur railway route between India and Bangladesh. The pending problem is to get access by Nepali vehicles up to Bangladeshi territory. The transaction cost becomes very high when Nepali vehicles are allowed to go up to the India-Bangladesh border and from there the cargo is loaded and unloaded by Bangladeshi vehicles.
India and Nepal are facing tense political and bilateral environment in recent years, which has deprived Nepal to take advantage from India’s accelerated growth. The foundation of India-Nepal relations is cooperation, not conflict because of geographical contiguity, cultural ties, institutional and social relationships and common bond of shared relations. It means bilateral relationships are strengthened only through the spirit of cooperation and understanding, not by conflict. Constraints and opportunities between the nations vary, indicating the fact that the interests of the two countries may vary. Therefore, the uniqueness of existing cooperation between India and Nepal can be strengthened and appreciated only when the two nations clearly define the term “national interests” based on the aforementioned fundamentals.
bishwambher@yahoo.com
Related story
'Do not compromise on national interests in the name of equidis...
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
