Publication Date : 07-05-2013
The long story of the relations between the two intimate neighbours, India and Nepal, has once more been in the public eye owing to the recent visit to New Delhi of Nepal’s former Prime Minister, Pushpa Kamal Dahal. Better known as Prachanda, his nom de guerre from his days as a front-line revolutionary fighter, Mr Dahal came just after paying a visit to China where he had talks with senior Chinese leaders. There was a considerable carryover from that visit during his conversations here in India; indeed, he had many thoughts to offer on how India and China could collaborate on some projects in Nepal, to the mutual benefit of all the parties concerned.
Mr Dahal has become a familiar figure in India, both during his time in office and subsequently, and over the years he has made a considerable effort to reach out to opinion makers here. On his latest visit, apart from the think-tanks he addressed the media and was in touch with a variety of individuals connected with India-Nepal affairs. It was thus a serious effort to project his views, and as Mr Dahal heads a party that commands more parliamentary seats than any other, and as he could be a serious contender for power after the elections that are to take place in Nepal towards the end of the year, his views merit attention, both within the official world and among people at large.
Mr Dahal’s priority, as it emerged from his various discourses, was not so much the need to put his party’s ideological stamp on his country as to find ways of accelerating its economic development. He showed an acute sense of the need to combat poverty and a realisation that Nepal would have to be better focused on this task ~ maintaining ideological purity took a lesser priority. In a different era, before they had handled the reins of government, the Maoists of Nepal could be uncompromising on matters of dogma, being driven by revolutionary zeal, and could be ideologically at odds even with the famous economic pragmatism shown by Deng Xiaoping that was placing China on an unstoppable path of economic transformation.
The Chinese Communist Party too hesitated to adopt its Nepalese counterpart as an authentic partner, even though it invoked the name of the great revolutionary Mao on its masthead. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then and, driven perhaps by the imperatives of electoral politics, the NCP has had to explore new, more realistic ways of seeking economic advancement. In this context, Mr Dahal placed considerable emphasis on the possibility of India and China coming together to collaborate on joint projects in Nepal, including major projects for harnessing that country’s major asset, its water resources: this would bring great benefit to all three parties and to the region as a whole.
From the NCP’s point of view, tripartite cooperation of the sort mentioned by Mr Dahal could be a considerable demonstration of flexibility and a way of bringing its two large neighbours together in a positive and productive relationship. However, it may not be easy to persuade New Delhi of the advantages of such ideas. From the time of its Independence, India has believed that its inescapable strategic interests are closely and directly engaged in the Himalayas and has always been very cautious and watchful about the role of third countries in that region, especially China. There is a considerable history, too, to be taken into account that could further complicate the issue, for Nepal has more than once turned to China in a deliberate attempt to counterbalance the pervasive ties with India, and China has been all too willing to respond. Sensitivities on this score are somewhat reduced as a result of improved relations between India and China, but yet there is no getting away from the basic strategic and security imperatives that condition India-Nepal ties. Tripartite cooperation on river valley projects in Nepal is a far-reaching matter and may not be easy to achieve.
Mr Dahal also spoke of his wish to promote tourism in Nepal, in which context he mentioned plans to develop pilgrimage sites for Hindu as well as Buddhist pilgrims in the Terai area bordering India. This is regarded as another possible project for three-part cooperation and both India and China have been asked by Nepal to take part in the infrastructure development. Access to the sites is most readily available from India and Nepal’s places like Janakpur (Hindu epic Ramayana mentions it as birthplace of Goddess Sita) and Lumbini (birthplace of Buddha) could be an important part of the pilgrim circuit focused on drawing visitors to Nepal from India as well as Buddhist Asia. India has been engaged in the development of road and other infrastructure in Janakpur for many years and China has been brought into the picture relatively recently. These are places with deep cultural and religious resonance which will need to be taken into account in international plans for infrastructure development.
As Mr Dahal’s visit showed yet again, even with the best will in the world it is never easy to find a way forward on India-Nepal projects. The point was underlined even before Mr Dahal’s visit was concluded when it became known that Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (which controls the Indian Oil Corporation) were at odds over a project to build a pipeline to transport oil across a short stretch of the border area. The Nepal Government has apparently asked the IOC to develop the project but MEA has sounded a cautionary note, perhaps because the financial commitments of the two sides are yet to be clarified. This is not a very large project -- according to the information available the total cost is in the region of one billion Indian rupees (US$18.57 million), and it would seem that much of the expense will go on land acquisition, largely in Nepal, for only 2 km of the pipeline would be in India and the remaining 39 km in Nepal. MEA’s caution about the project also has something to do with the apprehension that a pipeline would attract the hostility of the local transport lobby which currently controls the shipment of oil across the border.
The contretemps over the oil pipeline highlights one of the constant problems in effective management of the bilateral relationship. India provides a good deal of development assistance to Nepal but does not always obtain commensurate goodwill, in part at least because the implementation of projects can rub up against local sentiments. Undue and excessive delving into the minutiae can undo the genuinely friendly sentiments that guide India’s cooperation policy. The inter-ministerial spat on the oil pipeline shows that we still have lessons to learn.
*US$1=53.82 Indian rupees
The writer is India’s former foreign secretary
Post a Comment
Post a Comment