Moving Beyond Past

China, Nepal and India share a lot of history. However, the relationships are strained because of increasing mistrust. Can these nations open new chapters of friendship in modern age? And how difficult would the road be?

In between the Dragon and the Elephant country lays Nepal, home to Mt. Everest. The three countries share large parts of their borders. China borders Nepal in the north, whereas the remaining three sides are bordered with India.  While the relationship between the three countries has been written explicitly, some issues continue to exist despite the harmonious relationship these nations share throughout history.

Indo-Nepal ties

Regardless of sharing excellent relationships in all forms, in modern times, Indo-Nepal ties have been affected by the way India continually tries to play as Big Brother. In his article on Hindu, Damakant Jyasi expresses that one of the key reasons why both the nations have fits is for the fact that India continually meddles in Nepal’s internal affairs. While India has repeatedly stressed that it would not interfere in Nepal’s politics, the case is otherwise. In his address to the Nepali parliament on his visit to the Himalayan nation, Indian Prime Minister Mr. Modi expressed the India, in no ways would interfere in Nepal’s polity. He opined that both the nations needed to open a new page in their relationships and then move forward.   

The failure of Nepali leaders to stand on what they speak has been one of the reasons that seem to have strengthened India’s role as “Big Brother”. One of the many incidents was Home Minister’s remarks on Indian interference. Mr. Bam Dev Gautam, Home Minister of Nepal from CPN-UML, is one of the many Nepalese leaders that criticize India’s interests in Nepal and accuses the former for meddling Nepali politics. However, they immediately come up with their modified versions; often stating that “Nepal and India share good relations and it is illogical to think India with negativity”. However, the dual standard continues. 

Moreover, one of the major concerns against India is its border intrusion. India continually has been infiltrating Nepal’s land and claiming it as theirs—just as China is doing to India on its northern side. (China claims that the region of Leh and Arunanchal is part of China). In such light, India’s double standard—whereas it doesn’t want China to intrude in its territory and wants a clear border in the north, it is doing the same to Nepal.

Sino-Nepal ties

During the Panchayat period (1960-1990), Nepal and China remained cordial. Few months before the first People’s Revolution or Jana Andola (1990), the then Chinese PM Li Peng and Mrs. Chulin had arrived in Kathmandu in a three day visit. A day after the arrival of Chinese PM, China granted Nepal Rs 38,25,00,000 for developing the sources of economic development. China’s decision to supply arms to Nepal had, by then, become a subject of great controversy. Dr. Ram Kumar Dahal, professor of Political Science in Tribhuwan University, Kathmandu expressed that the Sino-Nepal ties turned sour after “Nepal failed to strongly defend to India its decision to bring weapons from China.” Moreover, Mr. Dahal expressed that “the emphasis that Nepal put on with its ties to India, including the relationship between Indian leaders and the Nepali Congress leaders adversely affected Nepal-China relations.”

PLEASING THE GIANTS

Throughout its history, Nepal has been trying to please both China and India. As a result, both India and China want to have a strong hold in Nepal. A Chinese stronghold means that it can explicitly monitor India and vice versa. Consequently, both nations want to gain trust of Nepal and bring it closer to one against the other. Nepal does not allow anti-China activities inside the country. Likewise, India has its upper hand with its proposals for the fact that Nepal is landlocked. Everything that comes to Nepal comes via India—through sea (Bay of Bengal) or through road. Hence, rather than finding its own strength to put forward in a dialogue, Nepal, continually pleases the two giants.

THE ROAD AHEAD

Every individual must come out of their past and work for a better present and future. The case of the three nations is no different. The nations must emerge out of their historical relations and differences and develop into strategic business partners of one another for long term development in modern age.

In doing so, each country must identify and exploit its resources to the optimum.

While Nepal is second richest country in the world in water resources, including running water that is suitable for producing hydroelectricity, it unlikely has been the case. Although Nepal has the potential of producing 83,000 MW of hydroelectricity (40,000 MW is considered technically feasible). , Nepal’s total installed power generation capacity is at mere 750 MW, less than two percent of its potential. The 900 MW hydroelectricity agreement reached with India’s GMR Company on Sept. 19 is seen as an important step to realize Nepal’s untapped resource. Nepal should also invite more foreign investments with investor friendly policies and utilize its waters to the maximum.

Alex Lam JP, Deputy CEO and Executive Director of Securities and Futures, commission of Hong Kong contends that the three nations should work in three different levels to move ahead.

Mrs. JP maintains that “first, the three nations should strengthen political trust and cooperation at the official level”. She believes that doing so would build common grounds to resolve differences. All the three nations have continually fought battles to trust one another for the fact that they have minimum encounters. The Chinese President, Mr. Xi Jinping came to India after six decades whereas, Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Narendra Modi visited Nepal after 17 years. Such encounters builds on to political mistrust that strain friendly relations amongst neighbors.

Secondly, these nations should also promote regional cooperation. Mrs. JP expresses that the countries should “encourage cross border investments, sharing of professionals and experts, opening of regional markets to each other, joint infrastructure construction and resource exploration to ensure that the Himalayan region goes through coordinated development.” 

Thirdly, Mrs. JP feels the need to “deepen civic and cultural exchanges” to better understand and respect ethnic identities, religious beliefs and cultural differences.  An open border between Nepal and India along with long history of family relationships has strengthened person-to-person ties between the two nations. However, both Sino-India and Sino-Nepal ties is minimum. Fifty years ago, all the three nations were on the same level. Yet, now, the picture is otherwise. China has far outpaced the two nations in growth and economy. India, despite being an emerging superpower is fighting its battles to social evils. Nepal, on the other hand, was pushed to a decade long Maoist war that has led to continued political instability till now.

While the road ahead looks bumpy (with all the blame games), a united voice and unified action is still possible. The countries should eventually move ahead with new chapters in friendship and relationships. Any country which attempts to stay in history misses opportunities of development. With every missed opportunity, a nation, instead of becoming stronger, fails and crumbles.

Nepal, poorest of the two nations should be able to find its own path to development and seek assistance of either or both the countries only when necessary. It should not be a battleground where the two Asian giants fight for their dominance and Nepal becomes a mere pawn. 

TO ‘DO’ OR NOT TO ‘DO’? MODI’S CLASSROOM

On September 5, Indian prime minister Mr.  Narendra Modi did something that was applauded as well as viewed with an opportunity of indirect political indoctrination.

Mr. Modi addressed students and teachers across India on the occasion of Teacher’s Day. In the speech, which was broadcast from state run television, Door Darshan and through online streaming, Mr. Modi spoke elegantly about the importance of education, recollected his childhood memories, and urged teachers to be a guiding factor in the lives of their students. Mr. Modi also pleaded teachers not to separate students from technology. He argued that doing so would be a “social crime”. Moreover, Mr. Modi explicitly spoke on girls’ education and expressed his dissatisfaction of high dropout rate of girls between fifth and seventh grade. Mr. Modi scorned the failure of building separate toilets for girls as a detrimental factor for such high dropout rates.

As a person nominated by the citizens, the prime minister has the right to be concerned about issues that plague citizens. The role diminishes the gap between political haves and haves-not, and shrinks its size to find itself in an example of a house. Just as our parents do not want to see ill prey on us, the prime minister, being the guardian of every citizen, too does not want to see the same. In this light, the prime minister, therefore, is seen to be bestowed with the right to select and suggest what is best for his children.

Agreed that a guardian has the right to select and suggest what is best for his children. But to what extent is forcing their children allowed?  The question of freewill versus freedom contradicts with one another. Rousseau, in his famous political book, “The Social Contract” argues, “man is born free, but everywhere he is tied in chains.”  And indeed, while the children who attended Mr Modi’s speech were free, they, however, were tied in chains.

Although Mr. Modi spoke from his heart and raised genuine concerns in the field of education, his address from Maniksan Bhawan, New Delhi is pulled on both sides. Rather than forcing all educational institutions to submit a report card of his one and half hour class attendance which commenced from 3 PM till 4:30 PM, Mr. Modi, prime minister of the world’s largest democracy, should have requested, and not made it mandatory for everyone to listen. In this view, Mr. Modi’s address to the students, through state operated media, could be seen as an authoritarian approach.

Mr. Yogesh Dhakal, a journalist from Nepal opines that one cannot force somebody to do something in a democratic country. “You cannot dictate somebody in a democracy.  It was his attempt to indirectly inject indoctrination,” Mr. Dhakal said, adding that the address was a populist move to find his place in next elections. Mr. Dhakal also remarked that Mr. Modi always was choosing his words carefully. “You could see his handpicked words in all the three foreign visits (Bhutan, Nepal and Japan) that Mr. Modi went after becoming the prime minister.” 

However, veteran journalist Prabhat Shunglu sees it the other way round. Mr. Shunglu believes that the address saw no harm at all. “The PM is trying to connect to the youth in his own way and there is nothing wrong with that,” Mr. Shunglu opines, adding, “the youth are builders of new India and the PM can choose to address the youth any day and any time.”

Nevertheless, Mr. Shunglu maintains that the move was “slightly breaking away from the traditional past of the Nehru-Gandhi line.” The Nehru-Gandhi establishment in Indian politics goes a long way through history. The Indian Congress, established in 1885, was the first to fight against the British colonialism which came through the East India Company after the Battle of Palssey in Bengal in 1757 AD. The British, who steadily rose to power consumed the country’s resources and exploited the Indian people for almost 200 years. The Indian Congress, led by Jawahar Lal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi finally achieved independence on August 15, 1947. The very history of being the first party to make India free from British domination has been a pushing factor for the Nehru-Gandhi family to stay in power—until it suffered a humiliating defeat in the election of lower house four months ago.

In doing so, Mr. Shunglu believes that Mr. Modi is “trying to get the nation out of the mental and political paradigm”.  Years of failed “promised” developments by the Indian Congress infested by escalations in crime and corruption, and justice being a distant dream, the gap between Indian citizens and their representatives widened. As a result, after 50 years in power, the Indian Congress paid its price.

While Mr. Dhakal believes that the step was one of the several stepping stones to ensure Mr. Modi’s victory in future elections, Mr. Shunglu believes that it was too early to say whether the prime minister has next election in mind.

Regardless of the sides, teachers and students did appreciate what Mr. Modi expressed. “No government had ever pondered on the issue as Mr. Modi did. We are grateful to him,” one of the teachers expressed on an interview on television. Was the speech an opportunity to inject PM’s doctrine? Mr. Shunglu says, “likely not. We still are too early to decide on that.” 

SEX! SEX! SEX! LET US TALK ABOUT SEX!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.