Submit your Article

Defense is often a taboo topic in Nepal. Writing on defense from a strictly nationalist perspective is, for many, a no-no because you are not only accused of being undemocratic and unrealistic, but also a lobbyist for the army. You are also deemed insensitive to your neighbors’ security concerns. Therefore, a lot of defense-re­lated writing one gets to read follows one of two lines: that we need to downsize the military or we need to address the neighbors’ security concerns, as if we are irresponsible and we delib­erately harbor forces acting against Chinese and Indian interests. Therefore, it is not wrong to say that most foreign- and defense-related articles we read make no sense. (And it’s astonishing that our security experts are miraculously silent on the threats we face from our neighbors on economic, environ­mental and security fronts).The mistaken liberalism that many of our analysts subscribe to views a strong military as a challenge to democracy; hence there is no need to strengthen it. And this runs counter to the suggestion they often make, i.e. we need to address our neigh­bors’ security concerns. To assure our neighbors that we take both our and their security concerns seriously, we need to have a well-equipped military.

The Nepal Army is under- and-ill-equipped. During the Military Day celebrations each year on the Mahashivaratri day, the army has absolutely no new weapons to display to instill a sense of security among the gen­eral public. Now contrast that to the annual military parades elsewhere where the people get to see modern weapons procured by their armed forces. But for us, it is always the same drill and equipment. It’s disheartening to see the army display bulldozers and other construction equip­ment instead of new weapons—guns and artilleries—in the annual military parade.

The situation is pathetic, to say the least. The Nepal Army does not even have sufficient stan­dard issue rifles for its troops. Its arsenal is mostly a hodgepodge of old weapons donated by or bought from China, the UK, India and the US. Some weapons are so outdated that even the coun­tries that produced them do not use them anymore. For example, the UK-made ferret armored car, which the Nepal Army proudly displays on every possible occa­sion to awe us civilians, is no lon­ger used by the British Army. We the civilians have seen it so many times that we aren’t awed by it anymore. It feels like a musket in the age of advanced rifles!

The anti-aircraft guns, some of which were made in 1956, were bought from China. In fact, their import is what led to the Indian economic embargo of 1989-1990. These guns are not very effective in securing our air­space in the age of digital technol­ogy and rapid advancements in fighter jet technology.

The Indian Army will be retiring the INSAS rifles because of their many faults. But the Indian gov­ernment wants our troops to keep using them. Therefore it came as no surprise when the CoAS Rajen­dra Chettri told the legislature parliament in December 2015 that 45 percent of the weapons in the army’s arsenal are antiquated and need to be replaced immediately. But thanks to the mistaken liberals dominating the security discourse and the political leaders with little or no knowledge of security, the army is cash-strapped and forced to accept help from every possible country, making it probably the only army that accepts help from countries with such conflicting interests as China, India and the US. So much for the brave Gorkh­ali pride!

Now, can Nepal address its and its neighbors’ security concerns with the antiquated weapons? Perhaps it’s about time we trusted our men and women in uniform and made them feel proud of the job they do by equipping them with the latest weapons. That would also make us feel more secure.

The European Union is once again at the center of controversy in Nepal. The recommendation by its election observers that the Nepali state do away with the reservation for Khas-Aryas in the parliament did not go down well with the government or with any rational Nepali citizen. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was quick to issue a strong statement that clearly told the EU and other missions in Nepal to stop making such silly recommendations and not comment on our internal matters. While some leaders, notably Upen­dra Yadav and organizations that have a dubious record of receiving financial help from the EU or from numerous INGOs funded by it, were supportive of the EU’s recommenda­tion, others rightly viewed it as an unnecessary provocation.

In response, the EU said it stands by its report and it is up to the gov­ernment to work (or not) on its rec­ommendation. It offered to talk with the government on the issue, which the government rightly declined. The KP Oli-led government, despite some recent misadventures in for­eign policy, has yet again proved that it will not back down from call­ing a spade a spade. And unlike in the past, the preaching days seem to be over for the foreigners.

The beginning

According to a retired Nepal Army general who has closely followed the Maoist insurgency, the Maoists used ethnic politics to cripple the nation. He believes that the EU was the brain behind ethnic politics, either for car­rying out a silly political experiment or for facilitating proselytization. “Otherwise how do you explain that Nepal’s is the only communist insur­gency in the world that received financial help from the churches in Europe?” he asks. The Maoists, after entering mainstream politics, made a U-turn on their pledges of ethnic states as they learned the hard way that the majority of Nepalis simply do not care about ethnicity-based feder­alism. It is not only impossi­ble but also impractical in Nepal’s context. But the EU is still fascinat­ed by the idea and has found others, especially the intellectu­als and other regional par­ties with an ethnic agen­da, to do its bidding.

Doesn’t suit EU

Last year when the Catalonians voted for independence from Spain, the EU and all of its mem­ber states either remained quiet or issued statements supporting the Spanish state.

Imagine a scenario where a prov­ince in Nepal opts for indepen­dence. The EU will not even wait for a referendum. It will not use the argument it used to support the Spanish state that there is no provi­sion whatsoever for independence in the Spanish constitution. The irony here is that one reason the Catalonians wanted independence from Spain was to preserve their unique Catalan identity.

In Nepal, the EU has no prob­lem meeting secessionist forces and advocating on their behalf, as if the notions of sovereignty and territorial integrity apply only to wealthy countries, its member states or where it has strategic interests. (Meeting such secessionist forces is in direct violation of the Vienna Convention for diplomatic relations that the Europeans themselves helped develop.)

Further, the EU is the last body authorized to talk about inclusion because it is driven by race and religion—despite the liberal, all-en­compassing façade it maintains to preach poor countries like ours. Otherwise, how would one explain its reluctance to grant membership to Turkey, which for the very pur­pose has made significant amend­ments to its constitution?

And the EU also has no right to preach others about the virtues of democracy and inclusion or suggest a particular political or development model to follow, as most Europe­an countries developed because of colonialism and the exploitation of the weak. The poverty and conflict in much of Africa today is the result of European colonial exploitation. If PN Shah and the Khas-Aryas are to be blamed for Nepal’s current prob­lems, then King Leopold II, Queen Victoria, Cecil Rhodes and the white Europeans must be blamed for the ongoing problems in Congo and Zim­babwe.

Similarly, anti-Semitism was wide­spread up until the 20th century and the Jews who were in Europe for centuries did not feel very welcome in the countries that unabashedly teach us, the poor countries, the val­ue of inclusion. The “moral” Europe fought two wars with China to keep on selling opium there and creat­ed divisions among Indians along religious lines. Moreover, Europe rejected Japan’s demand to include the racial equality clause in the char­ter of the League of Nations in 1919.

Racist within

Even today there are not many African, Arab and Asian descendants who make it to high positions in the bureaucracies or governments of European countries, although they have lived there for centuries. Nor do European countries accept or recognize Asian and African dialects or Arabic as one of their official lan­guages. Many European countries are now seeing a revival of the right­ist anti-immigrant forces. How many French of African descent have been ministers or prime ministers? How many non-white Belgians? And how many Europeans of Arab origin hold important government or bureau­cratic positions in Europe?

Has the EU suggested that its member states give reservations to their ethnic minorities—Arabs, Afri­cans and Asians—or limit the dominant group’s rep­resentation in their parliament or bureaucracy? Maybe it’s about time it did so because the governments and par­liaments there seem biased toward one group. According to a news story published in The Guardian (July 27, 2017), “Jean-Claude Juncker leads a European com­mission cabinet, or college, that is entirely white…The EU’s executive has been accused of being blind to black and minority ethnic commu­nities after they failed to feature in a new “diversity” initiative to make the European commission’s senior posts more representative…Within the European parliament, of the 776 MEPs elected in 2014, fewer than 20 are thought to be from a minority ethnic background, although no official statistics are held.”

Germany’s EU commission­er, Günther Oettinger, is known for his openly homophobic and racist comments. When some­one, for instance, pointed that calling Chinese “slant eyes” may be racist, he replied that his comment should be understood in the “larger context”.

Is the European Union itself diverse? “If you want to see diversity in the European institutions, look at the faces of the cleaners leaving the building [the European Parliament in Brussels] early in the morning and contrast that with the white MEPs [Members of the European Parliament] and officials entering,” Politico quotes Syed Kamall, a Brit­ish Muslim who leads the European Conservatives and Reformists in the European Parliament.

The EU preaches from a bully pulpit in Nepal because our leaders and intellectuals find it advantageous to remain quiet in the face of blatant violations of all diplomatic protocols. Nobody wants to lose their perks or be labeled undemocratic by speaking up to a regional organization that mol­lycoddles them. Such silence only emboldens the EU.

We have talked a lot about the criminal-political nexus; perhaps it is time we talked about the (I)NGOs-intellectuals-politicians nexus and ways to break it. If not, it will not be the last time the EU offers its provocative and dubious recommendations.

Doctor prescribes

Just as Dr Mahathir Mohamad implies in his memoirs, ‘A Doctor in the House’, had Malaysia followed the Euro­peans’ suggestions, it would still be a poor, fragmented and dysfunctional country. Many eth­nic Europeans, he writes, “are for­ever offering unsolicited advice, apparently unashamed that when they left Malaya to the Malays in 1957, it was a poor and underdevel­oped country… still, they seem blind and deaf to why I will not accept their advice. Many of them think we should uphold liberal democra­cy modeled on their own national practices, forgetting that our social, cultural, religious, ethnic and eco­nomic composition is completely different from theirs.”

According to the Doctor, “It is the negatives that they see and imagine, not our positive achievements,” and “behave as if they are superior and generally know better than Asians.”

Perhaps, it’s time for a Nepali Mahathir.

The over-a-decade-long transi­tional politics saw an enormous increase in outside interest in Nepal. True, help from outside was invaluable in the mainstream­ing of the warring Maoists, even though the work was largely done by Nepalis themselves, as the foreign actors involved therein would be the first to acknowledge. As Nepal was making the transition from a constitutional monarchy to a fed­eral republic, there was also a wide range of inputs, many of them pos­itive, in the process of writing the new constitution. But as the Nepali state progres­sively weakened, with the transi­tion dragging on and on, foreign actors sought to actively influence the political course here, instead of playing the supportive role expected of them. Some European countries got into controversy for support­ing an ethnic agenda, ‘wrecking’ Nepali politics in the process, as some alleged. India in this period became more high-handed; and the Chinese more assertive.

PM KP Oli seems eager to reassert the primacy of Nepali actors. His quick and unambiguous rebuttal of the European Union’s recent elec­tion report is a case in point. Wheth­er the new constitution is flawed or not, and if and when it should be amended, is up to Nepali actors to decide. The EU itself is far from an ideal and inclusive entity, and has a checkered record in Nepal.

The bottom line: In the new Nepal, only Nepalis get to shape the national polity.

.........Full story https://theannapurnaexpress.com/news/the-hypocrisy-of-eus-inclusion-pitch-209

While the leaders and we—the writers, ana­lysts, scholars and elites or what have you—are obsessed with our relations with neigh­bors (which I too am guilty of), and promoting and institution­alizing democracy in the coun­try (which I am not guilty of), the common citizens of Nepal have different priorities altogeth­er. They rightly believe that both of our neighbors will keep on doing what they are doing and we will be doing whatever we are doing until now, so except for the occasional beer or local brew sessions with friends, for­eign policy is not a priority for most of them. (Once the drinking session is over, the obsession with the foreigners and their activities is also over—well, until the next booze fest). Similarly, when it comes to democracy, most of the country is baffled that the same set of leaders the whole country seems to loathe gets miraculous­ly elected all the time. So much for the argument that the Mao­ist insurgency led to heightened political awareness.Rather, the violent insurgency and the political-criminal nex­us, corruption, nepotism and we-can-do-anything attitude of the leaders have further enfee­bled the country. The people and the elites alike are too meek to ask the questions that really matter. In a way, the rift between the gov­ernment and the public has wid­ened even more. People have no interest in what the leaders have to say, because they know it’s just empty talk. While the leaders live in a different world where everything is provided for, the majority of Nepalis live in a world full of wants. And we, the self-pro­claimed intellectuals, are busy connecting the geopolitical and geostrategic dots and are focused on abstract ideas and ideals.

No wonder, people use all sorts of colorful adjectives to describe and address the leaders and view us, the so called elites, as a weird bunch on some shady foreign agency’s payroll. Many spend Rs 12 to buy a cigarette and Rs 20 for a cup of tea, but are unwill­ing to spend Rs 10 to buy a daily newspaper. The circulation of major national dailies proves it. There are not many readers in our “politically aware” country, and rightly so, because all you get is bombarded with news and views that have hardly anything to do with the real issues and problems.

For example, how many edito­rial and op-ed pieces are penned asking the government what it does with the tax money or sug­gesting it to use the tax money on upgrading infrastructure? Where does all that money go because we seem to rely on foreign aid even for ambulances and fire trucks? Again, how many editorials and expert views do you, the readers, get to read on the importance of urgent and concrete action on road and food safety and alarming pollution? Similarly, hardly any­one is suggesting the leaders to act on their election pledges, and to internalize the importance of decriminalizing politics and con­trolling inflation, corruption and misuse of government vehicles.

Contrast these with the num­ber of pieces advising the gov­ernment on what it ought to do with India and China or on the need to institutionalize democ­racy and freedom of expression and human rights. Not that these abstract ideals, which our lead­ers and writers talk ad nauseam about, do not matter, but in our context, effective utilization of tax money, and access to safe roads, food, clean air, healthcare and education are also equally or even more important.

But we seldom write on these issues because they are not sexy enough.

The politicians are in a different tangent and we can only hope that one day we will be blessed with a responsible leadership. But what about us? We too are guilty of being either timid, unconnect­ed or unconcerned with the real issues and problems. We, the mis­guided elites, have knowingly or unknowingly hijacked the real agenda and the shameless politi­cians are having a field day.

Perhaps it’s about time we asked the right questions and made the right noises so that there’s some semblance of morality and accountability in the country—or at least to get people to read what we write.

Owing to a warning by the Netra Bikram Chand ‘Biplab’-led Nepal Commu­nist Party, Bollywood superstar Salman Khan’s show in Kathman­du, scheduled for March 10, has been postponed. The show rep­resented an assault on our cul­ture and nationalism, the splinter Maoist party argued, and that the Bollywood actor was allegedly taking away the money required for national reconstruction fol­lowing the 2015 Gorkha earth­quake. Similarly, it urged people not to forget the Indian economic blockade following the promulga­tion of the new constitution. In a way, the party made it appear that stopping the show represented a victory of Nepali nationalism: we avenged all the injustices com­mitted by the Indian government by not allowing Indian actors to perform in Nepal. In yet another show of mis­placed nationalism thousands gathered to prove the Buddha was born in Nepal, when it is already accepted by the world that the light of Asia was indeed born in Lumbini, Nepal.

In this day and age, this kind of nationalism only makes us a laughing stock. This is not to say that everything is hunky-dory between India and Nepal. We are neighbors and we obviously have issues with one another. But let’s not forget that our problems with India and vice-versa are between the governments and politicians of the two countries, not between the two peoples—except occasion­ally when some ill-informed and ill-educated Indians claim Buddha and Everest as their own.

The bilateral relation is com­plicated more than it should be because both the partners are way too sensitive when dealing with each other. Our leadership believes India meddles in our internal affairs. But the irony is that the same leaders who are quite vocal about Indian med­dling are the ones who at one or another point have requested the Indian government to interfere on their behalf. Strangely enough, some of our great nationalist leaders were the same ones who requested the Indian government to impose a blockade on Nepal following the ill-advised and ill-timed coup by King Gyanendra in 2005.

Indian leadership views us as ungrateful and insensitive to its strategic interests and believes it has every right to meddle in Nepali domestic affairs because of the help provided to the polit­ical parties in the past. And India defines its interests in terms of our relations with China. This is quite hypocritical. It wants us to limit our interactions with China but then itself maintains good relations with China, barring the occasional border standoff.

The trade volume between India and China is growing and both have focused on developing people to people level ties. Nei­ther do our leaders ask nor do Indian leaders clarify what India will do to help Nepal develop if we limit our interaction/engagement with China. That’s what compli­cates things politically. It’s likely to be this way until both countries have sensible leaders, but that doesn’t mean we should compli­cate other things as well.

Coming back to the postpone­ment of the Bollywood superstar’s show, more than Biplab’s party, our government is to be blamed for it, as argued in a blog post from March 2 on mysansar.com. The show’s “postponement” rais­es many questions but hardly any­one is asking those for the fear of being labeled pro-Indian or being on the RAW payroll. The most important question is: Would the government have remained silent had the Biplav faction issued warnings against, say, a show involving Chinese celebrities? Per­haps the government reckons that cancelling the show of a global Indian cultural icon earns it some brownie points with China.

But if the government thinks that its silence and inaction please China, it is clearly mistaken.

Shows and concerts by foreign celebrities are common in China. It even allows select Bollywood movies to be screened despite a host of problems it has with the Indian government. The govern­ment-owned China Central Tele­vision’s movie channel regularly broadcasts Bollywood movies and songs. Last week, while some of us were issuing warnings against the show by Salman Khan in Nepal, one of his movies, Bajrangi Bhai­jan, was released in China and is doing rather well, according to media reports. Because unlike us, the Chinese know that culture and politics are two different matters and there’s no point in mixing the two. Ah, when will we learn?

We are often told by our leaders and analysts toeing the “line” that we are on our way to pros­perity. With democracy, a federal set-up and a young demographic, there is no way to stop us from achieving our dream of a prosperous Nepal. And before you could question them how exactly these factors influence economic growth, they will be quick to add that we will become a vibrant bridge connecting India and China and benefit from their economic growth. This is all humbug.First, we are pinning our hopes on oth­ers—India and China—for our economic growth. It is no different to expecting your rich neighbor to give you money to renovate your house. You need to have money or the ability to make money yourself to get things started and if you run short of it, then your neighbor may loan you some if you ask for it. But you cannot be certain of it as your neighbor’s generosity or lack of it depends on many factors. It is the same with nation states. But we seem to forget this simple fact.

To further trick us into believing that they know what they are talking about, our leaders and scholars often invoke the trickle-down effect—that we will reap benefits from the growth of our neighbors, even if we do nothing. It’s like dreaming that part of the interest earned by your neighbor on his huge bank deposit is going to automatically seep into your account. No, that’s not going to happen. So there goes the mon­ey-will-follow-even-if-we-stand-idly-by argument. No country helps another develop without considering its own interests. If we want development, we need to bury our desire to become a bridge connecting the two and the non­sensical equidistance idealism. We need to wisely choose one of our neighbors to be our strategic partner. Then, develop­ment will likely follow.

Misguided optimism about neighbors aside, another huge impediment to our economic growth is our total disregard for the rule of law, which is a polite way of saying we are quite lax when it comes to the morality of our leaders and bureaucrats. We have come to accept bribery, embezzlement and nepotism as part and parcel of our democracy. While we may accept all these as normal, it distracts foreign investors. And without Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), a coun­try like Nepal has no way of embarking on economic growth. Since many lead­ers and analysts ether benefit or harbor dreams to benefit from the present cha­os, it is no surprise that hardly anyone is serious about upholding the rule of law.

While the prevalent narrative is that all the previous systems were feudal, unfavorable for economic growth and couldn’t manage affairs with the neigh­bors, we seem to forget we entered a new system over a decade ago. And what are the signs of development or of better things to come? Ten years is a long time during which many constructive things could have been done.

China, for example, made economic reforms in 1978 after the decade-long Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) and was bidding to host the Olympic Games in Beijing in 1998. Japan was bombed to ashes during the Second World War, but it hosted the Olympic Games in 1964. They could do so as their leaders under­stood the importance of a strategic ally or development partner and of the rule of law for their country’s development.

Although we are more than a decade into a new and “better” system, we are still dependent on aid and remittance, while forgetting the importance of major infrastructure projects. We are yet to reconstruct the fallen monuments even almost three years after the earthquake.

Yet our leaders and analysts are optimistic. They must be smoking something.

We are often told by our leaders and analysts toeing the “line” that we are on our way to pros­perity. With democracy, a federal set-up and a young demographic, there is no way to stop us from achieving our dream of a prosperous Nepal. And before you could question them how exactly these factors influence economic growth, they will be quick to add that we will become a vibrant bridge connecting India and China and benefit from their economic growth. This is all humbug.First, we are pinning our hopes on oth­ers—India and China—for our economic growth. It is no different to expecting your rich neighbor to give you money to renovate your house. You need to have money or the ability to make money yourself to get things started and if you run short of it, then your neighbor may loan you some if you ask for it. But you cannot be certain of it as your neighbor’s generosity or lack of it depends on many factors. It is the same with nation states. But we seem to forget this simple fact.

To further trick us into believing that they know what they are talking about, our leaders and scholars often invoke the trickle-down effect—that we will reap benefits from the growth of our neighbors, even if we do nothing. It’s like dreaming that part of the interest earned by your neighbor on his huge bank deposit is going to automatically seep into your account. No, that’s not going to happen. So there goes the mon­ey-will-follow-even-if-we-stand-idly-by argument. No country helps another develop without considering its own interests. If we want development, we need to bury our desire to become a bridge connecting the two and the non­sensical equidistance idealism. We need to wisely choose one of our neighbors to be our strategic partner. Then, develop­ment will likely follow.

Misguided optimism about neighbors aside, another huge impediment to our economic growth is our total disregard for the rule of law, which is a polite way of saying we are quite lax when it comes to the morality of our leaders and bureaucrats. We have come to accept bribery, embezzlement and nepotism as part and parcel of our democracy. While we may accept all these as normal, it distracts foreign investors. And without Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), a coun­try like Nepal has no way of embarking on economic growth. Since many lead­ers and analysts ether benefit or harbor dreams to benefit from the present cha­os, it is no surprise that hardly anyone is serious about upholding the rule of law.

While the prevalent narrative is that all the previous systems were feudal, unfavorable for economic growth and couldn’t manage affairs with the neigh­bors, we seem to forget we entered a new system over a decade ago. And what are the signs of development or of better things to come? Ten years is a long time during which many constructive things could have been done.

China, for example, made economic reforms in 1978 after the decade-long Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) and was bidding to host the Olympic Games in Beijing in 1998. Japan was bombed to ashes during the Second World War, but it hosted the Olympic Games in 1964. They could do so as their leaders under­stood the importance of a strategic ally or development partner and of the rule of law for their country’s development.

Although we are more than a decade into a new and “better” system, we are still dependent on aid and remittance, while forgetting the importance of major infrastructure projects. We are yet to reconstruct the fallen monuments even almost three years after the earthquake.

Yet our leaders and analysts are optimistic. They must be smoking something.

We have read more than enough of how and why the victory of the Left Alliance in the polls is a huge loss for India. Almost all who have been writing about it, and let’s be honest, there’s not much else to write about these days either, have mainly focused on how Chi­na will be an influential player in Nepali politics in the days ahead. But there’s hardly any piece sug­gesting India what it ought to do now—if it wants those seen “favorable” to its interests win the next elections—or telling it exactly where it went wrong on Nepal.

Let’s admit it, many perceive India as a power that wants to dictate terms in Nepal and China as a benevolent power that does not interfere. China thus enjoys enormous soft power. The Left Alliance’s victory has much to do with the thoughtless Indian embargo and KP Oli government’s brave resistance against blatant violation of Nepal’s rights as a landlocked country. New Delhi policymakers must understand that the bullying approach cou­pled with India’s efforts to micro­manage Nepal must change. India clearly needs an image makeover and it is not difficult do; all it needs is Nepal Policy 2.0.

The South Block and old Nepal hands in India must accept that their coercive diplomacy vis-a-vis Nepal has not in any way been successful. The Indian approach so far has been: you follow our diktat or we blockade you, and if you still do not do what we say, then we foment a revolution/oust you and have our men take over the reins of government. Maybe this worked in the past, but it’s not going to work anymore as Chi­na has entered the scene and our leaders rightly view it as a power that can keep India in check.

The more coercive India gets, the more our leaders—of course, minus some obsolete ones who are yet to grasp the wishes of the majority—will be open to China’s active involvement in Nepal.

Similarly India needs to take seriously the accusation that it does not want Nepal to develop. Its delay in completing infra­structure projects; its compa­nies’ dilly-dallying on starting vital projects even after years of getting necessary permits; and India keeping companies of other countries away from infrastruc­ture projects, especially the ones deemed crucial for Nepal’s devel­opment—are the things that anger Nepalis. It’s about time India let go of the unfounded fear of a moderately developed Nepal as a threat to its interests.

India also needs to explain the mystery of border pillars between the two countries moving further along Nepali territory. It needs to initiate dialogue to resolve the long-standing dispute on Susta and Kalapani. Moreover, it has to understand that the arrogance of Indian security forces entering Nepal in uniform and carrying weapons to either awe the locals in border areas or to arrest criminals only add fuel to the fire.

What could be resolved diplo­matically and by following the “unofficial” arrangements when it comes to arrest and extradi­tion of criminals between the two countries, India does just the opposite. And we rightly view it as undermining our sovereignty. Controlling the activities of its state governments and border forces would give it less or no bad press and help in creating a new image in the not-so-long run.

Then there’s the issue with the peace and friendship treaty of 1950, which was forced upon the ailing Rana regime. Come on, it is 2018. Instead of taking us for a ride with futile EPG meetings, why can’t India show magnanim­ity and announce that the diplo­mats of the two countries will be working on replacing the treaty entirely in a year’s time?

For many Nepalis, India is an important neighbor, but it is at times difficult and insensitive. Now the onus is on India to change this widely held perception.