Nepal-India relationship discussions are primarily driven by conspiracy theories, especially in Nepal. Unfortunately, Nepal lacks strong institutions to analyze its security and the foreign policy issues and carry forward this debate in an academic manner. It is imperative that we start to see Nepal-India relationship from the theoretical perspectives of international relation. One important school of international relations, Realism, argues that states are primarily driven by security concerns.
Realist theory focuses on how states behave with one another and how such behaviors are aimed at protecting national security. Similarly, India’s policy in Nepal can be seen from realist theory as India’s attempt to protect its security interests. Historically, India’s concerns in Nepal can be analyzed from two perspectives: perceived and real threats.
The main concern for India, with regards to Nepal’s geostrategic location, is China’s increasing interest in Nepal, especially after China’s annexation of Tibet in 1957 (a perceived threat). Time and again, this issue has been raised by Indian strategic thinkers who believe Nepal acts as a ‘strategic Himalayan frontier’ against possible Chinese threat. The Chinese military buildup in Tibet adds fuel to this growing ‘perceived threat’ of that China might someday cross this frontier.
This is the reason Indian security establishment has repeatedly advocated for offensive military buildup along India-China border region. The Indian government seems to have heeded the concerns and has started preparing for offensive military buildup to retaliate quickly in case of a conflict against China. Simultaneously, India is monitoring Chinese activities in Nepal and has been expressing its deep concerns on growing Chinese military and diplomatic activities in Nepal, especially after 2006.
India has a legitimate security concern in Nepal, beside its geo-strategic interests. These concerns relate to counterfeit Indian currency, international crime organizations operating within Nepal, vulnerable international airport, insecure Indian investment, Maoist movement, and Islamist terrorism, amongst others (real threats). These concerns have been continually raised by Indian officials with their Nepali counterparts. India is troubled about Nepal becoming a potential smuggling and crime hub. The Nepal-India open border is a constant source of distress for Indian security establishment as it fears they might be exploited by anti-Indian elements. Additionally, Nepal’s weak domestic institutional capacity cannot prevent or protect Indian interests effectively. This has provided further impetus for India to work with Nepal Police and Nepal Army directly.
Nation-states intervene in other states to protect their core national interests. History suggests that such interventions are often military, but realistically, that is not possible at present considering Nepal’s geo-strategic location. However, recent preventive wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya provide evidence that countries with diplomatic and military power can invade another country to protect their core interests. This factor is not foreseen in Nepal; however, it cannot be ruled out.
The other way of protecting national interest is through non-military ways. It can be argued that this is the traditional mechanism India has been adopting in Nepal; the 1950 treaty, unabated flow of Indian aid, deep political ties, engagement with domestic political parties, media, academia, security sector, and business houses can be seen in this light. A country can use its diplomatic and economic leverages to protect its security interest. Similarly, India has used these non-military mechanisms to support its core national security interests. It could be argued that part of Indian strategic design is to create a political regime conducive to its security interest. Clearly, this is indicative of a hegemonic policy to address India’s perceived and real threats in Nepal.
However, direct or indirect interference in Nepal’s domestic political matter has had a negative impact on Nepal-India relationship. But India’s hegemonic policy has not born any fruit. Indian premier think-tanks and strategic thinkers have also realized India’s policy has failed in its immediate neighborhood. The recently published book by Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, one of the premier think-tank in India, titled India’s Neighborhood: Challenges in the Next Two Decades, clearly articulated the challenges India is likely to face in its neighborhood in the coming decade. The book poses a legitimate question: if India has a neighborhood policy at all.
The chapter on Nepal argues that although India-Nepal bilateral relationship has been characterized as ‘special’ but now it is at its “lowest ebb due to anti-India sentiments in Nepal, in reaction to the perceived political interference by India”. It further argues that “Nepalese media, civil society groups and academicians have been very critical of what they call ‘India’s micro-management’ in Nepal”. The book accepts the growing ‘anti-Indian sentiment’ in Nepal, which is ultimately going to harm Indian interests. In fact, ‘anti-Indian sentiment’ has been identified as a primary challenge in Nepal-India relations, and addressing and minimizing it recognized as the key to improving bilateral ties.
The book’s recommendation is to “formulate a comprehensive and long-term Nepal policy”. It further suggests Indian policymakers resist their temptation to micro-manage Nepali politics. It argues that “shaping of perceptions should be an integral part of this strategy. Instead of playing favorites amongst the political parties, India should engage with all of them and with other stakeholders, like the army and the civil society.” This important policy suggestion accepts the failure of India’s Nepal policy. It will, hopefully, make Indian policymakers rethink India’s ‘hegemonic policy’ in order to reduce the anti-Indian sentiment, thereby improving India’s ‘special’ relationship with Nepal.
On the other hand, Nepal also needs to revisit its diplomatic relations with India. It is crucial for Nepal to have a concrete and long-term India policy. Needless to say, there is more shared culture and people-to-people contacts with our southern neighbor in comparison to our northern neighbor. We need to foster better ties with our southern neighbor without harboring any ill intent towards our northern neighbor. Nepal needs to utilize its geostrategic location and move away from its “Yam Syndrome” as rightly pointed out by the Nepali Foreign Minister recently.
Nepal cannot alter its geography. It needs to learn to balance its relationship with its neighboring giants diplomatically, thereby effectively handling its own foreign and security policy. Nepal needs to come out of this “Yam syndrome” and forge an effective link to act as a “vibrant bridge” to benefit from its two giant neighbors.
The author is a researcher on security sector reform at Kathmandu School of Law. He has a Masters degree in Asian studies from Australian National University.
Related story
The charm of co-working spaces
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
