Watch it on the NIICE Nepal YouTube channel

EVENT REPORT

The Nepal Institute for International Cooperation and Engagement (NIICE) hosted an online conference to discuss the newer dimensions of India-Nepal relations, particularly in the context of the newly elected Prime Minister Puspa Kamal Dahal’s anticipated visit to India. The first speaker from the event was Prof. S D Muni, Professor Emeritus from Jawaharlal Nehru University, India, who began by sharing his thoughts on the evolution of Nepal-India relations, the prioritization of Nepal in India’s Neighbourhood First policy, the presence of Nepal in academic institutions of India, and finally, India’s response to the growing presence of the US and China in Nepal. In light of the current regime in India, Prof. Muni was frank in his observation that India would be happy to see Nepal transform into another Hindu state. However, such a development would be detrimental to both states. His second observation highlighted the lack of Indian investment in bilateral mega projects since the 1950s, but again, under the Modi administration, there has been a renewed focus on infrastructure projects, particularly hydropower, due to the Chinese competition.

India would also prefer a friendly government in Kathmandu due to the Chinese rivalry and heightened security concerns, although Prof. Muni, notes, that the Indian foreign policy has no clear vision of what kind of Nepal India would prefer to deal with, especially due to the inculcation of extra-constitutional vested interests of the likes of RSS in policymaking. On the other hand, Nepal’s visibility in the Indian academic space is steadily declining due to the declining rate of Nepalese students as well as poor standards of research faculty in institutes that do offer Nepal studies. In response to the last query, Prof. Muni reaffirmed the deep suspicion of Chinese foreign policy in India, which has made it more inclined towards extra-regional powers like the USA and Japan to deal with the China problem.

Finally, he asserted the need for Nepal-India to emphasize connectivity and productivity, not only in terms of physical infrastructure but also in terms of power, particularly hydropower projects. Furthermore, India should collaborate with Nepal in developing the educational, information, and technological sectors and training the Nepalese youth, and helping in stabilising and institutionalising inclusive democracy in Nepal as long as political instability persists in Nepal, neither of the countries will be in a position to take any concrete decisions in respect of their bilateral relations or evolve a consensus on their conduct to China.

The second speaker was Deepak Prakash Bhatt, the founder-chairperson of Nepal Centre for Security Governance, who was asked about his insights on the people ties between the two countries, mainly because he belonged from a border state, as well as India’s role in major political transformations in Nepal including its democratization, the possibility of India and Nepal promoting tourism together and how could Nepal benefit from economic development in India, particularly the IT sector.

The people-to-people ties between India and Nepal have relied on highway connectivity and trade routes, while India cannot be wholly blamed for the continued political transition in Nepal as a lot of fault lies with the incompetence of past political leaders as well, Bhatt notes. Tourism in Nepal can be a source of economic prosperity, but due to a lack of solid infrastructure, limited connectivity, and frequent political instability, there needs to be more development in that venture. Finally, due to the nature of the geopolitical battle between India and China at the moment and the subsequent sidelining of Nepal, it is important for Nepal to develop its domestic infrastructure and data security before it attempts to derive any benefits from India’s growing IT sector.

Ranjit Rae, India’s ambassador to Vietnam, Nepal and Hungary, with over 30 years of experience as a diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service, took on the floor next. He was asked about why Nepal dislikes India, the growing anti-Indianism in Nepal, India’s support for human resource development and capability building in Nepal, and Indian interference in Nepalese affairs. In the course of his talk, he quoted from his book, “Kathmandu Dilemma,” explaining the asymmetry of Nepal-India relations, be it in terms of geographical size, India’s support to democratisation in Nepal which was read as anti-Nepal by the supporters of the monarchy as well as shared cultural and civilizational links which are deemed problematic due to every nation’s need for a distinct and unique national identity. He humanizes political leaders and the act of diplomacy by equating it to friendly consultation or advice that should not be lumped together in the same category as deliberate interference. As for human resource development in Nepal, India offers a wide array of scholarships for higher studies as well as training institutes for students of Nepalese nationality, including both technological and medical institutes.

The changing geopolitical dynamics have affected and changed Nepal-India relations, and coupled with the political disenchantment with the existing political heads in Nepal as well the Sri Lankan economic crisis post-covid, the Nepalese government has to adapt and prepare itself to listen to the people and respond accordingly. Therefore, India needs to maintain cordial relations with the existing government and future leaders and civil societies in Nepal which will be more relevant in years to come. The anchor of Nepal-India relations must be rooted in economic development, and transformation can be brought about by implementing the digital payment model in India. Climate change must also be seen as a regional, bilateral issue that should be combatted together. Regional Supply Chains like that of China and Vietnam should also replicated for Nepal and India.

The fourth speaker was Major General Binod Basyant, who shared his thoughts on Nepal in strategic engagement in recent times, India’s role in modernisation and capacity building in the Nepal Army, the role of the Gurkha regiment as a connecting tie between India and Nepal, and finally, Nepal’s concern over India’s Agneepath scheme.

India and Nepal’s relationship is as complex as it is ambiguous, filled with harmonies and discourses. Therefore, the Major General approached the relations from a position of geostrategic apprehensions, foreign policy, and a security relationship. The first part included all the stakeholders across South Asia, East Asia, and West Asia as well as the members of G7 who are all currently caught up in geopolitical distress between the USA, China, and India. Secondly, India is increasingly wary of China’s closeness to Nepal, and in light of past policy mishaps between the Indian and Nepalese diplomatic relations, it is important to recognise and fix the loopholes to avoid compromising both political and people-to-people relations. He echoed the sentiments of Prof. Muni on the lack of distinct foreign policy of both states in their conduct towards each other. Concrete policies are needed rather than policies of convenience. Finally, the debate about Agneepath is centred on unemployment, and India should view the recruitment as a long-term relationship and also keep it open for people in border towns, on the other hand, Nepal should adopt policies that help ‘the returned.’

The next speaker was Dr. Nihar R. Nayik, who is a Research Fellow from Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses. He focused on queries such as India’s role of economic transformation in Nepal, and the prospects of India-Nepal-Bangladesh power trade. He observed that India has contributed a lot to Nepal’s economy, which has led to a mutual development of confidence building, and India has earned the trust and goodwill of the Nepalese population. There was a shift from India-backed mega projects in Nepal during the early 2000s due to the Maoist insurgency in Nepal that operated with an anti-India ideology and extensively targeted such projects. India was unable to fulfil its commitments, which led to a lot of Nepalese resentment towards India. Instead, India focused on small-scale projects at district and rural levels. This trajectory has changed again with the Modi government coming to power, focusing more on building hydropower channels and highway connectivity in Nepal. India has also offered price-pegging to Sri Lanka during its economic crisis. Still, Nepal has avoided undergoing a similar crisis due to the unrestrained flow of petroleum products from India. He also brought up digital transaction and power sectors as two important economic hubs for Nepal-India relations, as well as connectivity being the main priority for both states.

On the other hand, developmental projects undertaken by India in Nepal have been highly politicised in Nepal due to the domestic political order. The same sentiment has risen during Chinese projects in Nepal as well; it is not an isolated event. Additionally, problems with land acquisition, a lack of an apolitical bureaucracy, accusations of India trying to exploit the natural resources of Nepal, a lack of rehabilitation policy in Nepal, poor infrastructure and lack of raw materials and finally, the political instability in Nepal have all aided in the halting of India backed development projects in Nepal.

India-Nepal-Bangladesh power trade is currently at an operational stage. However, there are some challenges, including infrastructural challenges that require sustained capacity building, the need for a regularity framework, synchronization of technology and standardization of data, and a dispute resolution mechanism.

The final speaker of the day was Kamal Dev Bhattarai, the Editor of Annapurna Express, who offered a journalistic perspective of Nepal-India relations, the Indian journalist perception of Nepal and what Nepalese issue is deemed a priority within Indian media and the level of engagement between media houses of both states and to what extent they shape and affect the Nepal-India relations. He reported that despite political highs and lows between the governments, connectivity and development projects such as petroleum pipelines and hydropower projects between India and Nepal have progressed smoothly. Alternatively, the discourse of India’s interference in Nepal’s internal affairs has gained traction again. Moreover, India’s preoccupation with the US-China rivalry has led to differences in priorities between New Delhi and Kathmandu; Nepal wants to focus on border issues while India wants to focus on developmental projects.

Indian journalists observe Nepal from the eyes of the interests of the Indian government, with little interest in Nepalese domestic trends unless there is a major political stability for a prime minister visiting each other’s countries. On the other hand, the Nepalese media keeps highlighting the same issues between the two countries without exploring other avenues of potential cooperation and collaboration. The media houses of both countries have not collaborated either, and Western experts and scholars highly influence the reporting of and by both countries. There is a distinct lack of local perspective and both media people in both countries barely understand the other party.

The final segment of the conference drew over 106 questions from online participants, with questions directed towards individual speakers to offer their insights on queries such as why Prime Minister Dahal is visiting India without any proper agenda, how India and Nepal can collaborate to deal with environmental challenges, promote renewable energy development and have sustainable, productive cooperation, as well as the possibility of Gorkha recruitment in the Chinese military forces. The event ended with a note of thanks to the speakers and online participants, promising to host another session soon due to the high engagement but limited time.

Prepared by Shreya Das, NIICE Intern