The ongoing debates on Nepal-India relations due to the recent turn of events and propelled by the Madhesh Aandolan and the secular constitution, has foregrounded a few questions. Though such questions are not overtly asked, they are shared through rhetoric, innuendos and arguments of anguish, anger and nationalism. The calls for sending back the Indian ambassador falls into this kind of emotionally charged category. A beleaguered, landlocked Nepal and an irate big neighbour India, which is currently engaged in churning out} existential rhetoric and political interpretations, present a unique case of study on 21st century geopolitical relations.

It is common practice among graduate students in Nepali universities to write political theses on India and its efforts to balance non-interference in the internal affairs of its neighbours and while taking steps to ensure democracy there. But when it comes to Nepal, this is even more complex as Nepal-India relations consists of various issues. Political scientists and analysts have raked their brains over Nepal-India relations, which is amorphous and changeable. I remember presenting a paper at a meeting in Kathmandu attended by brilliant Nepali and Indian experts, including an erstwhile Nepali foreign minister, the current Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Kamal Thapa in 2010. The meeting was organised by Professor Lokraj Baral’s research centre and I chose the liberal or the aesthetic side for my paper. The burden of the seminar was to review the 1950 treaty of peace and friendship between Nepal and India. But against the backdrop of the changed context, I have the following caveats to introduce here as related topics.

The Madhes agenda

The crucial issue at the moment is the ongoing Madhes Movement. I consider this to be the outcome of the impatience, arrogance and reckless attitude of the big political parties regarding Madhesi and Tharu representation in the constitution. The misery and crisis caused by the Madhesi agitation and the Indian blockade has generated many discussions. The subject has also triggered a debate in the Indian Upper House highlighting the need to find a new way of looking at each other.

The claim that the Madhesi leaders are the first batch of Nepali politicians to visit Delhi seeking political support from India is without foundation because everyone who is literate enough to read newspapers knows how routinely the political leaders have visited Delhi at different critical junctures of power reshuffles in the past. The mysticism that surrounds Nepal-India relationship is caused by these eclipsed visits and ‘informally’ formal political agreements. Such mysticism is generated by a mode of relationship between Nepal and India that requires theorising on political and pragmatic scores. The recent visit of the Madhesi leaders to Delhi has unravelled some aspects of that mysticism created by Nepali politicians for decades. But it will also generate some complications that neither the Madhesi leaders nor those in the government can tackle without each other’s support. Predictably, this visit will be a soul-searching opportunity for both the agitating leaders as well as the ruling parties. Spectres of political past will continue to haunt the stakeholders. We will see that happening in various ways. The political parties will find a solution not because Indian coercions but by making up for the complex elisions created by both sides.  

Change in view

In the discussion on Nepal at the Indian Upper House on December 7, the remarks made by the opposition about the Indian blockade and Nepali politics, as well as the Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj’s statement—Ishwara or god willingly, the deadlock will be over in a week—have introduced an entirely new kind of bilateral code. One good thing about the entire event is that people in Nepal and India have begun to see beyond what a few political experts say when crises occur between the two countries. It is common for people to ask a few academics, political pundits, military and Gurkha experts and some not-so-happy former ambassadors to explain the mysticism in Nepal-India relationship. These scholars have always repeated the same age-old narratives and the diplomats have reiterated their moments of discontents while serving in the Kathmandu residency. The other good thing is that new issues were raised by the visit of the Madhesi leaders and the arguments of the opposition and government leaders in Indian Parliament and outside. What the experts and the scholars have been storing in their repertoire of knowledge about Nepal-India relationship has been deconstructed in the real sense. The ruling leaders of Nepal will see that the days of their secret visits to the Indian power circles are over with the Madhesi leaders’ visit and circulation of new narratives.

A new generation of Nepal-India experts is emerging. Talented Nepali journalists, Indian analysts whose writings appear in The Hindu and other Indian newspapers, Himal South Asia and Martin Chautari publications;  young graduates from Jawaharlal Nehru University; politicians of northern India especially from Bihar who know Nepal very closely; creative writers and theatre artists have been

taking over the task of experts in recent times. An outgoing Indian diplomat at the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu named Abhay K, who has published of poem collections in English and Nepali about his love and associations with Nepal and has organised scores of literary and cultural meetings over the years, will be remembered here more than any irate diplomats of the past. As an optimist literary person, I see moments of transparency dispel the bogies and open up direct communication between the Madhesi and the upland citizens and also between the Nepalis and the Indians of the younger generation.