ELECTION 99
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
ELECTIONS '98
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

Waking the dogs of peace

A seminar last month to find 'New directions in Nepal-India Relations' ended on a high note with a unique joint declaration. The optimism was premised on the prospects of political stability that has been eluding the two countries for some time. The Kathmandu Declaration was unique because it acknowledged the special relationship between the two countries while urging them to remove the lingering irritants and fears which have fuelled the trading of charges: of Indian interference and Nepalese anti-Indianism.

Both countries were urged to resolve the two outstanding issues: Kalapani and the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship. In addition, the Nepalese want India to help in the return of Bhutanese refugees.

Most importantly, the delegates -- four from Indian and more than a score from Nepal of all political hues, intellectuals and bureaucrats -- underlined the need for both sides to respect each others' security concerns and even recommended a joint security mechanism for this. The two day discussion was frank and freewheeling. The Indians were outnumbered but that was not the reason why they chose to be on listening watch.

There was unanimity on three issues: the Nepalese admitted that the flip-flop in policies and pronouncements relating to India by their political leaders depended on whether they were on the treasury benches or the opposition; Nepalese psyche and markets are immediately caught by the ripple effect of any changes in Indian economic policy; the Indian economic blockade in 1989 was both the lowest and the most decisive point in India-Nepal relations. Ironically, it was also the one single event that galvanised the movement for restoration of democracy.

There was recognition of other areas of concern: Nepalese sensitivity about the so-called special relationship which diluted their identity and sovereign equality and the quirk of geography -- land-lockedness, small size and being hemmed in between two big neighbours likened by one Nepalese delegate to an ant between two giants. Nepal also gave expression to the feeling of having been cheated in the sharing of water resources -- Kosi and Gandaki -- originating in Nepal, notwithstanding the unprecedented ratification in 1997 of the Mahakali Treaty by both countries.

Specifies were, however, missing from contentious issues. For example, while Kalapani has become the number one emotive subject in Nepal, the facts of the territorial dispute are obscure and there are several versions of the claim doing the rounds in Kathmandu. Nepalese assert the 35-hectare real estate lies on the east of the Mahakali river and is, therefore, theirs. A joint technical group, in the meanwhile, is examining opposing claims on Kalapani. Kathmandu's rumour mill has churned out a compromise: while retaining sovereignty Nepal would be prepared to lease Kalapani to India for 99 years.

Similarly, Nepal cites the 1950 TPF as unequal and therefore fit for revision or abrogation. But it is still not clear which of the two it wants: revision or abrogation. Nor is there any national consensus over it. The common objection is that it is an anachronism because the context in which it was signed has changed. Nepal has neither provided the draft of a revised treaty nor specified the offending articles of the treaty. India is more than happy to redefine the treaty on mutually acceptable terms though one of Nepal's versatile political leaders had recently preferred to 'let sleeping dogs lie.'

On the question of Bhutanese refugees, the Nepalese are agreed that India has a hand in and a handle on the problem. They feel India could at least act as a facilitator in resolving what India insists is a bilateral issue.

Nepalese delegates made some bold comments. At least three spoke about a common security vision and a joint defence mechanism. This is anathema for those who want the 1950 TPF abrogated. The view on Kargil was "we should have had the courage to condemn violations of the LoC as others did instead of merely saying both sides should respect it."

One other theme emanating from the seminar is that after the restoration of democracy, Nepal-India relations had become hostage to the internal political dynamics of Nepal and that any major development in the country required Indian patronage and blessing. That perception is not true and would hopefully change in the context of the new government in Kathmandu and Delhi.

The developing internal security threats to Nepal and through Nepal to India, and vice versa, were widely acknowledged. These go way beyond the ISI's institutionalised activities in Nepal which coincided with the third proxy war in J&K in 1990.

The four-year Maoist insurgency in West Nepal is rapidly spreading across the country. One or two bomb blasts have already rocked Kathmandu, shattering its image as the last Shangri La and introducing the new buzz word: terrorism.

Despite the stench of RDX and other irritants arising from contiguous borders, there is now greater hope of developing equal and mutually beneficial relations.

General Ashok K Mehta