India stirs distrust, hostility in Himalayan kingdom

September 20, the day Nepal promulgated its new Constitution, is likely to be remembered as the day when India-Nepal relations took a dive for the worse in recent history. New Delhi’s high-handed and crude attempts — including the Foreign Secretary being sent on a foredoomed mission that was certain to invite ignominy — to stall the promulgation of the new Constitution, followed by three very undiplomatic statements from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), have set back bilateral relations by at least 25 years. The distrust, hostility and suspicion in India-Nepal relations today is bound to hurt India’s image and interests as well as its regional and international standing. That Nepal, too, is hurt and in turmoil is no consolation given the long haul it would be to mend what has been broken now.

This rupture brings to mind the situation under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in the late 1980s when trade and transit points on the border were closed. Now, like then, anti-Indian feelings are rife in Nepal with the felt “economic blockade” being cited to reinforce claims of India arm-twisting a small and poor Himalayan nation. Nepalese politicians are gleefully harping on the vulnerability of a land-locked country at the mercy of Big Brother India.
The fact is trouble was brewing in Nepal long before India loomed large on the scene with Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar’s visit to tell the Nepalese that the new Constitution was unacceptable. Protests were already raging in Nepal against the constitution and at least 40 people had died in the violence. The violence was triggered by the Constitution’s creation of seven provinces, with Indian-origin Madhesis (in the Terai) being spread across five of these and having a majority only in one province. The Madhesis were also deprived of due elected representation (in proportion to their population). Besides this “injustice”, the Constitution was opposed for not being inclusive and democratic by other sections, too, such as the Janjatis and marginalised groups. 

The demand for Nepal being made a Hindu state was, however, voiced by a minority, which was hardly in a position to thwart the constitution on that score. Yet, informed observers see Nepal’s Constituent Assembly opting for a “secular republic” as the reason for India’s unwarranted intervention at the behest of the Modi regime’s Hindutva mentors. Even before India stepped in publicly, there was widespread discontent over the Constitution and the protests and violence were spiralling out of control. At the same time, a people weary of the eight-year-long Constitution-making process were relieved that all parties had come together to deliver the document. In the aftermath of the recent earthquake, the public mood forced the parties to bury their differences, complete work on the Constitution and make way for a stable administration. There was no consensus over the Constitution and there was enough unrest without India’s overt intervention. For years, New Delhi has been driving the process of Constitution-making. It has been a powerful presence in Nepal, felt but not seen. The government sending Jaishankar ripped the veil off the Indian role and, in a single stroke, revived anti-Indianism. 

It may be a long time before India-Nepal relationship recovers the balance that gave New Delhi the (unseen) upper hand from the time of VP Singh through PV Narasimha Rao and Atal Bihari Vajpayee to Manmohan Singh. 

The author is co-editor of the book State of Nepal