NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTION 99
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

The Rediff Special/ Wing Commander (retd) C M Jaywant

Indo-Nepal relations: At the crossroads

The gradual increase in the use of Nepal as a launching pad for subversive activities against India by the ISI, the hijacking of the Indian Airlines aircraft and the recent publishing of the 'secret' intelligence report on its activities by India Today (June 12, 2000), has brought into focus Indo-Nepal relations.

Though both countries have reaffirmed their commitment not to allow their territories to be used for activities detrimental to the other's security, there is a suspicion that the report was made public at the time of the meeting of the bilateral High Level Task Force. Another report in India Today (July 1, 2000) has focused on the increase in the number of madarsas and mosques along the India-Nepal border and the use of these for anti-India activities.

Nepal, which has a 90 per cent Hindu population, has cultural linkages with India going back to Indian mythology. It has been a part of ancient India whose northern barrier was the Great Himalayan Range. Today, Nepal is not in an enviable position, with two Asian giants, China and India having an overbearing presence to its north and south. Easier access from the south has resulted in a major mixing of ethnic populations between India and Nepal. Kathmandu has had to depend more on India for its economic progress.

With the special status enjoyed by the citizens of Nepal in India and the resulting mixing of diaspora, the average Nepali identifies himself strongly with India and there is dual loyalty at times. Nepali nationalism is aroused at regular intervals only by external instigation or by vested interests within Nepal.

Though Nepal was a monarchy at the time of India's Independence, executive powers were vested in the Ranas. In 1950, after the Chinese annexation of Tibet and fearing subversion of Nepal by China, India signed a treaty of peace and friendship with the Rana regime which required both parties to consult and "devise effective countermeasures" in case of security threat to either country. Some secret letters, later made public, were also exchanged, which stated that neither government would tolerate any threat to the security of the other by a foreign aggressor. However, Indian forces could be introduced only on an invitation by the Nepali government.

The treaty also gave "to the nationals of each other in its territory, national treatment with regard to participation in industrial and economic development," and granted "on reciprocal basis to the nationals of one country in the territories of the other, the same privileges in the matter of residence ownership of property participation in trade, commerce, etc." This has helped the Nepalese tremendously in getting employment and earning a livelihood in India.

In 1952, the India military mission was set up in Nepal to reorganise Nepal's armed forces and Indian advisors were also introduced to train the civil services. Though this was resented by the military officers and civil servants, co-operation between the two countries continued and when tension between India and China increased in the fifties, some Indian technicians assisted in manning the border post on the Chinese border.

In 1950, summing up India's security concerns vis a vis Nepal, Pandit Nehru had said in Parliament, "From time immemorial the Himalayas have provided us with magnificent frontiers. We cannot allow that barrier to be penetrated because it is also the principal barrier to India. Therefore, as much as we appreciate the independence of Nepal, we cannot allow anything to go wrong in Nepal or permit that barrier to be crossed or weakened, because that would be a risk to our own country." India has subsequently maintained that any attack on Nepal would be regarded as an aggression against India. Today, a new dimension has been added and its use by Pakistan as a base for anti-India activities should also be considered a threat.

The concessions granted by Nepal in the peace and friendship treaty were cemented by the economic privileges granted by India with the simultaneous signing of the trade and transit treaty. It extended reciprocal rights with regard to bilateral trade and transport of Nepalese goods through India. India has always projected these reciprocal arrangements as a fair and just arrangement between two friendly neighbours to mutual benefit, while some elements in Nepal have tried to depict India as a regional bully curbing the independence of Nepal or having hegemonistic designs.

India has also given technical advice and financial aid for infrastructure development in Nepal and this aspect has not been highlighted to India's advantage. Writing or talking about development projects does not make as good a copy for the media or score points for the politicians as much as India's designs on Nepal and sensationalising the small issues that are pending between the two countries. The Indian embassy in Nepal needs to play a bigger role in this aspect to improve India's image in Nepal.

The major deterioration in the relations between the two countries took place in June 1988 when King Birendra concluded a secret arms treaty with China. Though the sale was only of obsolescent air defence artillary, India protested vigorously as it felt that the action violated in spirit the 1950 treaty. When in 1989 the trade and transit treaty came up for renewal, then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi refused to extend it unless Nepal agreed to meet India's defence concerns. Both sides refused to back down and India closed 13 of the 15 border check posts that regulated Nepal's trade with the rest of the world.

The only other route available, the Kathmandu-Tibet road remains closed for most of the year and as major world powers kept out of the dispute, Nepal had to reconcile to the reality that it did not have the economic, military or diplomatic means to withstand the Indian blockage. Finally the 1950 treaty was reaffirmed and Nepal agreed not to purchase defence equipment without consulting India. In the meantime India had been encouraging pro-democracy elements in Nepal and relations improved significantly after a democratically elected government was installed in Nepal in May 1991.

However, as in India, people have had to pay a price for democracy. The interests of the nation and the people get subverted when it comes to personal and party gains. Politicians manipulate the sentiments of the people to win elections and come to power. Thus, while India has a good working relationship with the government of Nepal, the media and the Opposition have been able to project India as a regional bully.

Politics, propaganda and media hype apart, there is no denying that the ISI has been using Nepal for anti-India activities. It is a convenient staging post for supply of arms, ammunitions, explosives and fake currency to anti-social and anti-national elements in India. It is also an easy conduit to fuel the insurgencies in the northeast.

The intelligence report published by India Today accuses the ISI of 'exploitation of anti-India groups/lobbies/organisations/political parties specially extreme left and right wing elements for creating discord between India and Nepal and fanning anti-India sentiments, manipulation of Nepalese media for drumming up anti-India propaganda, promotion of Islamic fundamentalism and mobilisation of the Muslim community, which is mainly concentrated along the border, for anti-India activities; utilisation of Nepalese soil as a springboard for launching terrorists' strikes against India with the help of Kashmiri and Sikh extremists organisations and by exploiting the readily available infrastructure provided by the existence of criminal syndicates and smuggling networks along the India-Nepal border.' It also names some individuals including diplomats, politicians, mediapersons and businessmen in Nepal who have been colluding with the ISI, including some who were traditionally presumed to be pro-India.

Another article in India Today (July 1, 2000) quotes data compiled by the Gorakhpur police which gives statistics of the number of Muslim dominated villages and the increase in the number of mosques and madarsas on both sides of the border. It also talks about the number of unauthorised roads and crossing points which facilitate subversive activities. The Muslim population, the madarsas and mosques by themselves should not be a threat to security. However, it is very easy for the ISI to exploit lack of education and poverty and influence a section of that population with money and propaganda that religious minorities were being threatened and exploited and recruit certain elements for anti-India activities.

India has been taking initiatives at regular intervals to maintain cordial relations. During External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh's visit to Nepal in September 1999, both foreign ministers directed their foreign secretaries to "resume at the earliest their consideration of all issues of bilateral interests including those pertaining to the 1950 treaty." Jaswant Singh had also extended an invitation from the Indian prime minister to the Nepalese prime minister.

In June 2000, Brajesh Mishra, the national security advisor aand principal secretary to the prime minister, visited Nepal for a meeting of the high level task force. Besides reviewing the implementation of Indian aided projects in Nepal and identifying and prioritising new projects, he would have also discussed bilateral security and economic issues. Though Mishra told reporters that India had good diplomatic channels and did not need to use the media to convey anything to Nepal, it was felt in Nepal that the leaked intelligence report was timed to put pressure on Nepal.

The open border between the two countries seems to be a major contributor to problems being faced and there is a need to review the arrangement. During a recent survey conducted in Nepal, 85 per cent of people felt that trans-border movement should be regulated while 42 per cent felt that passports should be made necessary. Though effective implementation may be difficult along the porous border and setting up more check posts and patrolling may be expensive, a beginning has to be made. India will of course need to keep its long term strategic interests in mind. Recent media reports suggest that possession of passports may be made mandatory as early as October 1, 2000, though visas may not be required.

Besides the open border issue, other outstanding issues are the review of the 1950 treaty, scientific demarcation of the border, the Rapti inundation problem, the dispute over the Kalapani area, the activities of the ISI and the Nepalese Maoists, the removal of additional duty on goods coming to India from Nepal and repatriation of Bhutanese refugees who have gone to Nepal through India. These need to be resolved at the earliest and an arrangement satisfying the interests of both countries needs to be arrived at.

What is required is a give and take that will address India's security concerns and Nepal's economic interests. Prime Minister Koirala has been quoted to say: "Because of geography, social and cultural affinities as well as industry and commerce, it is clear that our relations with India must be more practical. We are not tilting towards India. Rather we have only underlined the reality of our interdependent relations with that nation." It is hoped that an understanding, keeping in view the long-term concerns and aspirations of both countries, is reached during Koirala's visit on August 1, 2000.

ALSO SEE:

Twilight Zone

Braggadocio can never substitute for professionalism

The Rediff Specials

Tell us what you think of this feature