Submit your Article

President Bidya Devi Bhandari conferred the honorary rank of general of the Nepal Army to the Indian Army chief Manoj Pandey during an investiture ceremony on September 5.  The armies of two countries have been honoring each other’s generals with the title since the 1950s, which reflects close ties between them. Pandey’s visit was a routine one but it came on the heels of the controversy over the Agnipath military scheme launched by the Indian government Though Agnipath was not on the official agenda of Pandey’s Nepal visit, the two sides might have discussed at an informal level, officials say. During his Nepal visit, Pandey held bilateral talks with his Nepali counterpart Prabhu Ram Sharma. The duo exchanged views on issues of mutual interests and discussed measures to strengthen the existing bond of friendship and cooperation between the two countries.  Experts say exchange of visits between the army chiefs of two neighboring countries provide an opportunity to discuss a range of bilateral issues, as well as ensure regular dialogue at the top political level and help clear the misunderstandings that emerge from time to time.  Over the past seven decades, there have been several ups and downs between Nepal and India at the political level, but the military relations have remained cordial, says retired India Army Lt. Gen. Shokin Chauhan. “The excellent relationship between the two armies is one of the cornerstones of Nepal-India ties,” he says.  Many Nepal Army soldiers undergo military courses in India. There are also a large number of Nepalis who are serving or have served in the Indian Army.  Strategic affairs analyst Binoj Basnyat says one of the important factors in the Nepal-India relations is their security relationship.  “The military ties form the centerpiece of a broad security relationship between Nepal and India,” he says. “This relationship is even more important in the fast-changing geopolitical context.”  India has also been one of the major donors and suppliers of military hardware and software to Nepal since the 1950s. During his Nepal visit this week, the Indian Army chief also handed over medical equipment, mine protected vehicles and maintenance equipment, among other items, to the NA.  Besides, the two countries’ armies also meet regularly to discuss issues related to security concerns, capacity building, and security requirements under the Bilateral Consultative Group on Security Issues (BCGSI). The 14th meeting of BCGSI was held on 28 October 2021, in Bengaluru, India. The Nepal-India joint military exercise, Surya Kiran, is also conducted every year.  Robust military relations between the two countries have contributed to making an environment of trust at the top political level. When the relationship between the two countries soured in 2020 over the new political map of Nepal, the visit of then Indian Army chief MM Naravane had played a pivotal role to open the line of of communication between the two countries.  “His visit created a conducive atmosphere, thus soothing the minor hiccups faced due to the recently flared up Kalapani border issue,” retired Indian Army Capt. Avinash Chhetry writes in his paper “Decoding Indo-Nepal Relations from the Prism of Indian Military Diplomacy” published in 2021.  General Naravane’s visit came soon after the visit of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) chief to Nepal. Chhetry described the even as “an increasing synergy between the intelligence and defense wings” on an issue that predominantly belonged to the Ministry of External Affairs.  It was an evidence of “the emerging role of military in the diplomatic space”.  During the 2015 Indian blockade, too, the armies of the two countries had played a vital role to resume movement of goods across Nepal-India border. After the blockade created a humanitarian crisis in Nepal, the NA dispatched an informal team to New Delhi to talk with the army officials.  Chhetry says the then Indian Army chief Gen Dalbir Singh Suhag held a series of talks at the highest level of political hierarchy to restore normalcy in the border areas. Chhetry says visit exchanges between the armies of India and Nepal are not just restricted at the highest level but at multiple tiers to ensure that the special bond between the two countries are alive.  Chauhan agrees with Chhetry. When King Gyanendra took over the power in Nepal in 2005, he says, the Indian Army had stopped supplying lethal weapons to Nepal.  “But the armies of the two countries were in constant communication,” he adds. 

The five-party ruling coalition is busy working out an electoral alliance modality for the Nov 20 polls to the federal parliament and the seven provincial assemblies. Each party in the coalition is driving a hard bargain to secure the maximum number of seats in the 275-member lower house of the federal parliament. Altogether 165 house seats (60 percent) are up for grabs under the first-past-the-post voting system. But dividing the seats is proving to be a tough job. Among the coalition partners, the Nepali Congress (NC) wants at least 100 seats and the CPN (Maoist Center) is aiming for a minimum of 60 seats. Similarly, the Madhav Kumar Nepal-led CPN (Unified Socialist) wishes to secure 40 seats in the lower house, while the remaining fringe parties are together angling for 30 seats. NC leader Shekhar Koirala recently said his party cannot go below 100 seats, even though such a compromise is a must if the ruling parties are to contest as allies. The electoral alliance has become a priority for the top leaders of major ruling parties not just to beat the KP Oli-led CPN-UML, the main opposition known for its strong organization and support base. They also harbor ambitions of occupying high state bodies. It is no secret that Congress President and current Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba wishes to be elected to the post of the country’s executive head for the sixth time. He became prime minister for the fifth time last July following the Supreme Court verdict to unseat Oli. Maoist Chairman Dahal, already a two-time prime minister, has also expressed his interest in occupying the top seat again. Baburam Bhattarai, who recently formed Nepal Samajbadi Party after severing ties with the Janata Samajbadi, as well as Madhav Kumar Nepal, the leader of Unified Socialist, have also already served as prime ministers. In the UML, Oli is the uncontested prime ministerial candidate, also having already occupied the office thrice between 2015 and 2021. The electoral alliance more or less serves the interests of the old party guards who want to remain in power. Some young leaders of major parties are ready to contest elections alone, come what may. Their focus is to strengthen party organization rather than joining forces with ideologically incompatible parties to get to power. But it is the senior and aging leaders who call the shots. Political analysts and pundits say the November elections will likely re-elect the same leaders who have been in power for decades as party leaders are unlikely to distribute election tickets to new candidates, women and representatives of marginalized groups. Preference will be given to the candidates close to senior party leaders, says Mina Poudel, a political analyst. “Even if there are women and marginalized community candidates in the fray, they will be relatives and henchmen of senior leaders,” she says. UML has decided not to repeat the candidates who were defeated in the previous elections or those selected under the proportional representation (PR) electoral system. Senior party leaders, many of them above 70 and well past their prime, are sure to get tickets. NC’s Deuba, who has been contesting from Dadeldhura since 1990s, will be vying from the same constituency again. The same logic applies to other Congress leaders such as Krishna Prasad Sitaula and Ram Chandra Poudel, as well as senior leaders of other political parties including Dahal, Nepal, Bhattarai, Jhala Nath Khanal, Mahantha Thakur, Bam Dev Gautam and Kamal Thapa. These leaders are willing to go to any length to ensure their victory. Bhattarai, for example, severed ties with the Yadav faction of the Janata Samajbadi, went on to form a new party and with the elections looming, approached the Maoist Center, his old party, for an electoral alliance. Gautam, the former UML leader, has also reached out to the Maoist Center to secure a parliamentary seat. The top priority for senior party leaders, analysts say, is to ensure their own victory and then to hand out election tickets to their close supporters. Young leaders and cadres don’t like the reliance of the party leadership on electoral alliance. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Congress. The party saw the emergence of many rival candidates during the local level elections held in May after many qualified local-level leaders were denied election tickets because of the alliance calculus. Nain Singh Mahar, a Congress leader close to Deuba, admits that his party is in a tough situation. He says the party will have rival candidates even if it decides to field candidates in all 165 direct election seats. “If we go into elections as a part of the alliance, we expect to be allocated 90 to 100 seats. In that case, there is a little chance of young leaders getting to contest elections,” says Mahar. “On the one hand, we cannot break the alliance and on the other, this alliance will rile many young leaders.” In 2017, the NC fought elections alone against the UML-Maoist left alliance, resulting in what was a historic drubbing. Even though the party was alone in the fray, there were rival NC candidates in more than a dozen constituencies. With or without the alliance, the leadership of major parties has never favored fresh candidates, or women or people from marginalized communities for that matter. The constitution makes it mandatory for parties to appoint 33 percent women while selecting candidates under the FPTP and PR categories. But youth and woman candidates were few and far between under the FPTP category in the 2017 elections. Only six women candidates were elected under the FPTP category—while 84 were elected under the PR category. Bal Krishna Mahuhang, associate professor at Tribhuvan University, says top leaders of major parties have never been serious about making the parliament an inclusive body. “They prefer to have the same-old set of leaders in the driving seat,” he says.

Nepal-China border points have never been fully functional since the 2015 earthquakes. After the quakes severely damaged the road and other infrastructure at Tatopani, the busiest border point between the two countries, it took four years for it to reopen, but even then only partially.  The Rasuwagadi-Kerung border came into operation in 2014 but due to lack of infrastructure and other reasons, it failed to serve as an alternative to Tatopani crossing, as China had planned.   Then Covid-19 pandemic struck in 2019. What little movement of goods that was taking place following the disastrous 2015 earthquakes came to a grinding halt.  Officials suspect China closed the Tatopani border mainly out of security concerns and the earthquake was just a pretext. Soon after the disaster struck Nepal, Chinese security personnel had come to assist Nepali villagers in border areas. It is said the security personnel saw pictures of the Dalai Lama hanging in Nepali houses, which alarmed them.  Tatopani Bazar, an important business hub for Chinese goods, was subsequently relocated. Once a bustling trading post is now deserted. Although the Tatopani border did come into operation in 2019, it was restricted to the movements of cargo trucks to curb the spread of Covid-19. To this day, only limited cargo is allowed into Nepal from the border point, hitting Nepal’s exports to China and contributing to a swelling trade imbalance.  The Chinese side has yet to clearly spell out why the movements of goods to Nepal from its border points are being restricted.  Domestically, the Beijing government has taken a zero-Covid policy under which it has introduced some draconian measures, such as strict and targeted lockdowns irrespective of their consequences. It has adopted strict measures with not just Nepal but all its neighboring countries. A surge in Covid-19 cases has been recently reported in several cities of Tibet, forcing the government to enforce strict lockdowns. Dozens of Nepali trades have tested positive for the infection and they are stranded in Tibet, as the border points have been completely closed for the past two weeks.  Bishnu Pukar Shrestha, Nepali ambassador to China, says Beijing has pledged to ease restrictions when Covid-19 subsides.   “The Chinese side has communicated that they have locked down major cities in Tibet, so it will take some time for things to normalize,” he says. The complete opening of the Nepal-China border points is not going to happen in the immediate future. This was made clear by the Chinese officials to Foreign Minister Narayan Khadka during his China visit on Aug 8-10. With the festive season approaching, Nepali traders are growing impatient. Ashok Kumar Shrestha, Chairman, Nepal Trans Himalaya Border Commerce Association, says businesses have been badly hit as the Nepal-China border points have not been fully operational in the past seven years. “The Chinese side has been releasing only a limited number of cargo trucks,” he says. “Surely, there must be reasons beyond Covid-19 for this.” Around 200 cargo trucks bearing goods bound for Nepal are stranded on the Chinese side. On Aug 29, a delegation of Nepali traders submitted a letter to the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supplies with a request to take immediate measures to ease border restrictions. Expectations were high when Nepal and China signed the Transit and Transport Agreement in 2016 following the blockade imposed by India in 2015. The general feeling was that Nepal would no longer have to depend only on India to bring in foreign goods. But since the signing of the agreement six years ago, there have been continuous obstructions on the movement of goods across Nepal-China border points.  Nepal’s trade and commerce relations with China are deteriorating, not improving as was expected during the agreement’s signing. Nepali traders have been expressing their concerns, to no avail. The Chinese side has time and again reiterated that the border points will come into full operation after the Covid-19 crisis is over. It has offered no timeline and no hope to the distraught traders.  Foreign relations experts say as China is reluctant to open up about its concerns and fully operationalize its border points, Nepali officials should find out what is bothering Beijing and try to address the situation. Upendra Gautam, general secretary of China Study Center Nepal, says Nepal should not hesitate to ask China if there are other issues beyond Covid-19 restricting the movement of goods into Nepal. “For China, security is more important than trade and economy,” Gautam adds. He is of the view that the two countries should have an honest talk on the matter.  “China’s restrictions at the Tatopani and other border points follow from security concerns,” says an official with the Ministry of Industry who does not wish to be identified.    Like Gautam, he too is in favor of the two governments engaging in frank discussions to fully operate the border points. 

Despite objections from the conflict victims, the international community, and the main opposition CPN-UML, the government seems intent on endorsing the bill to amend the Enforced Disappearance Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act 2014. The bill was tabled in Parliament on August 23. The rights activists see the new bill are designed to grant amnesty to those involved in serious human rights violations, torture, and rape. It incorporates terms like ‘murder’ and ‘cruel murder’, ‘torture’ and ‘cruel torture’ without clearly defining them. The vague definitions could be just the loophole that allows perpetrators of these crimes to get away scot-free. The main opposition has flatly rejected the bill, stating that such erroneous provisions should be corrected. After objections from conflict victims and the international community, preparations are underway to form a cross-party committee to address the concerns. The ruling coalition seemingly wants to fast-track the bill’s endorsement to take credit ahead of the November elections. Also Read: Is PM Deuba attending UNGA? Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba held related talks with CPN-UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli on August 23. In the meeting, UML conveyed that it is ready to lend support for timely conclusion of the peace process but that the bill should be amended. “We advised the prime minister to listen to the concerns of all stakeholders and not to take decisions in a hurry,” says UML leader Subash Nembang. Of late UN’s Resident Coordinator Richard Howard and ambassadors of the US, European Union, Germany and Switzerland have been meeting top leaders of major parties to express their concerns over the bill. They also met Oli on August 24 to voice their opposition against amnesty for serious human rights violators. The international community, however, has not made its position public. “The provisions of the new bill are unjust and we cannot accept it in its current form,” says conflict victim Suman Adhikari. “Murder and torture are grave human rights violations. There is no question of a murder being ‘cruel’ and ‘non-cruel’, unlike what has been provided in the bill.”

Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba was supposed to make an official visit to the US in July. But the plan got derailed following the controversy in Nepal over America’s State Partnership Program (SPP).  It is now a near-certainty that Deuba won’t be holding official talks with US President Joe Biden in the Oval Office. That’s a rare opportunity gone begging. The last time the leaders of the two countries had held official talks was back in 2002: when Deuba—during his second prime ministerial stint—sat down with President George W. Bush.   Government sources say Nepali officials are now in informal talks with the US to set up informal level talks with President Biden on the sidelines of the 77th UN General Assembly that is due in September. Chances of the sit-down, however, appear slim at the moment, as the US side has not offered any guarantees.    A source close to Deuba tells ApEx that the prime minister will fly to New York to attend the assembly only if the Americans agree to arrange a separate meeting between him and President Biden.  “Or else, our foreign minister could attend the UN General Assembly.”  Deuba is also under pressure from his coalition partners to avoid the US visit before the elections—at a time when Washington is pushing for another SPP-like deal.  The prime minister and his team are acting cautiously so as not to provoke the coalition partners ahead of the November elections.  “The prime minister is not keen on the US trip if the goal is only to address the UN General Assembly,” says the Baluwatar source. The source says Deuba hopes to be re-elected prime minister and, buoyed by his fresh mandate, go on an official US visit.  “Right now he is not in a position to make any agreements with the US.”  Although the UN General Assembly is an important platform, there has been no high-level participation from Nepal since 2018. Last year, too, there was uncertainty over Nepal’s participation in the assembly until the last moment.  By the time Narayan Khadka was appointed the foreign minister on September 22, the general debate had already begun. Khadka dashed off to New York to address the assembly and did not get to interact with world leaders.    This time, however, Khadka too is not so keen on attending the UN General Assembly in lieu of impending elections, say sources.  There has been no prime ministerial-level participation from Nepal in the annual UN gathering of member countries after 2018. That year, KP Sharma Oli had led the Nepali delegation to the UN headquarters. In 2019, the UN assembly was attended by then foreign minister Pradeep Kumar Gyawali. In 2020 and 2021, Nepal’s prime ministers had virtually addressed the event.  Dinesh Bhattarai, a former Nepali ambassador to the UN, says the General Assembly is an important platform for a country like Nepal as it offers an opportunity to interact and meet with world leaders.   “As far as practicable, the prime minister should go,” he says. “If not, only then should the foreign minister lead the Nepali delegation at the assembly.”  He adds that the current state of volatile geopolitics also demands a high-level participation.    “The UN General Assembly is an opportunity for Nepal to learn first-hand the positions of powerful countries on changing geopolitics.”  As the Covid-19 pandemic has more or less subsided, world leaders will be attending multilateral forums during the UN gathering. International relations experts say Nepal can utilize this opportunity, including by holding follow-up meetings on some outstanding bilateral issues with India and China.  As the chair of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), Nepal can, for instance, convene a meeting of foreign ministers of the regional body on the margins of the UN General Assembly. 

The Election Commission (EC) is preparing to hold elections to the federal parliament and seven provincial assemblies on Nov 20—in a single phase. It’s a herculean task in terms of security, human resources, and logistics.  But despite the challenges, the commission is capable of conducting the polls on the same day and in a free and fair manner, says Chief Election Commissioner Dinesh Kumar Thapaliya.   The first challenge that the poll-governing body as well as the Home Ministry currently face is management of human resources, mainly security personnel.   The Nepal Police is the primary security provider for elections while the Nepal Army (NA) and the Armed Police Force (APF) serve as back-up forces.  As the current police strength is inadequate to oversee election security, it plans to hire 120,000 temporary police to secure around 11,000 polling sites and 22,000 booths across the country.  Deploying enough security personnel during elections is hard, says Hemanta Malla, a former deputy inspector general of police. “Nepal Police must carry out its daily policing work as well as secure the poll centers.” When the elections to the local bodies were staged earlier in May this year, 62,000 police and around 100,000 temporary police were deployed. For additional security, 32,000 APF and 71,000 army personnel were also on the ground, with their own sets of security plans and mandates.    Tek Prasad Rai, spokesperson for Nepal Police, says the major constraint for election-related security is lack of weapons, vehicles, and communication equipment.  “We have 2,660 police units across the country but only 1,717 four-wheel vehicles,” says Rai. “We also lack communication equipment and weapons.” Chances of police getting additional communication equipment and weapons before the November polls are slim. In the run-up to the May local elections, Nepal Police had submitted a proposal to the Home Ministry for purchasing weapons. But the ministry initially snubbed it, citing fund-crunch. When the ministry did accept the proposal, it was forced to roll back its decision following a public criticism that the government was planning to buy weapons when the country’s economy is in a terrible shape.   During the local elections, the Nepal Police had to borrow weapons from the army. It is likely to do the same for the November elections as well.  “Without sufficient weapons and resources, police cannot keep a close eye on every election-related security detail,” says Malla. “In that case, incidents like booth-capturing and vote-rigging cannot be effectively prevented. Management of non-security staff at election centers is another challenge. According to the commission, it needs approximately 260,000 staff—40 percent more than in the May elections—to conduct federal and provincial elections. As the number of government staff is insufficient, the EC will have to hire temporary election officers. The election governing body is also logistically constrained to hold elections in a single phase without any hiccups.  Thapaliya, the chief election commissioner, says his office will import only those electoral equipment that are unavailable in the country.  The EC also expects logistical support from India and China. It has already communicated with India and China through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, requesting vehicles, ballot boxes and other equipment. With limited logistics and resources, it is hard to be assured that the elections will be smooth. It would have been far easier for the EC to hold the polls to the federal parliament and provincial assemblies in multiple phases.  But both the EC and the political parties are in favor of a single-phase election.  Malla, the former inspector general of police, says there was no need to hold elections to all seven provincial assemblies on the same day.  “Considering the issue of logistics, India holds its state assembly elections on different dates,” he says. “We could follow a similar model here.” The multiple-phase elections are also cost-effective, as some logistics and resources can be reused.  But Thapaliya does not agree. He says the EC is capable of holding elections in a single-phase. “Unlike India, we don’t have a large population and as such we do not need to hold provincial assembly elections on different dates,” he says. 

Appointed by President Joe Biden in June 2021, Jessica Stern is an US special envoy to advance the human rights of LGBTIQA+ persons. She specializes in gender, sexuality and human rights globally. Her role as a special envoy is to ensure that American diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of the LGBTIQA+ community around the world. She recently visited Nepal and met several members of Queer community, government officials and other stakeholders. Kamal Dev Bhattarai of ApEx caught up with her. What is the purpose of your Nepal visit?   One of my responsibilities is to identify the countries that have best practices on people belonging to this community. There is not a country on the planet that does not discriminate against this community. The question is: How can we accelerate the pace of change, what policies and programs should governments invest in so that members of this community enjoy citizenship rights? Nepal has been at the vanguard in terms of recognition of this community in the constitution and seminal Supreme Court decision. Actually, the US can learn a lot from Nepal when it comes to the legal arrangements. I came to know how this community is living here. During my stay in Kathmandu, I talked with more than 50 members of this community, government officials and representatives of institutions working on Queer issues. What major concerns did members of this community share with you?  I heard that transgender people still experience high-level of discrimination and violence and it is very difficult for them to change the citizenship document. And without access to legal documents that reflect your gender marker, it is tough to get a job, housing and other facilities. People of this community want access to equal marriage, they want to be able to adopt children and they want to be recognized as parents. How do you see the legislative status of Nepal with regard to queer rights?  When I spoke with members of this community here, I came to know that they want a broader rape law because any person of any gender and sexual orientation can be a victim of rape. They want an easier pathway to citizenship recognition. People want equal marriage. They want to be entitled to full protection that every citizen is provided. And women want to pass citizenship to their children. That is the priority for the people here, not only for the heterosexual people but all women. When women are not seen as full citizens in the eyes of law, it has spillover effects at the community level. How do you compare Nepal’s status on queer people to other South Asian countries?  Nepal is a beacon of hope in this region. LGBTIQA+ communities in other countries often say: We want to be more like Nepal, Nepal has received recognition from the court, they get meetings with the government and they are not criminalized. I think these are the markers of success in the region. Nepal is a symbol of hope on queer rights. The country is a leader in this region on human rights of these people. If there is further progress on LGBTIQA+ issues, it will not only be good for Nepal but also for entire South Asia. LGBTIQA+ communit y still faces discrimination in Nepal and many members are not ready to come out. What are your suggestions? A lot of people are still afraid to come out because of practical reasons. When you come out, there is a risk of family rejection. Many communities cannot live with their family because they are not accepted. I met those people who were homeless because it is difficult for them to find a landlord. Many of them are unemployed or underemployed. We should think about how everybody can support them. It is very simple: respect all people, love your children no matter who they are, do not reject them. Governments in all countries, including here in Nepal, need to ensure the most vulnerable get additional support. They should certainly get more resources.

This year marks the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between Nepal and India.  While the two countries formally started diplomatic relations on 17 June 1947—two months before India gained its independence from the British—it was the Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1950 that laid the foundation for future Nepal-India ties. The treaty formalized the open border between the two countries, facilitating people-to-people connections, which makes the Nepal-India relationship both unique and strong.   Over the past seven and half decades, the two countries have seen many ups and downs in their relations. But India remains a key development partner of Nepal.  Ranjit Rae, former Indian Ambassador to Nepal, says this relation is characterized by shared civilization: “[Nepali and Indian] societies have been nurtured and nourished by the same mountains and rivers.”  Open borders, he says, has led to a seamless movement of people, goods and services, contributing to fraternal relationships between the two countries and their peoples.  Despite fluctuating relations at the political level, the development partnership between the two countries is ever-expanding. The key areas of partnership between Nepal and India are connectivity, health, education, energy, education, defense and infrastructure projects.   Nepal occupies a special place in India’s ‘neighborhood first’ policy. In his Independence Day message, Indian Ambassador to Nepal Naveen Srivastava spoke of how common cultural tradition remains the pillar of development partnership between India and Nepal.   Lok Raj Baral, former Nepali ambassador to India, agrees that Nepal-India bond is special, one that cannot be disturbed by disagreements at the political level. There has been no substantive change in our bilateral relations in the past 75 years, he notes. “The substance and structure of our relationship remains the same,” he adds.    CPN-UML leader Deepak Prakash Bhatta says it is the people-to-people connections that keep the ties between Nepal and India strong even in the face of disagreements between the two governments.  For example, the 1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty has long been a bone of contention between them, for example and the issue of its amendment has cropped up time and again, to no avail.  Making changes to the bilateral arrangements, which have been in place for the past 75 years was among the recommendations made by the Eminent Persons’ Group (EPG), a joint body of the two countries formed to update bilateral treaties. But India has yet to officially accept the report to take matters forward.    Many doubt India will ever consider reviewing its treaties with Nepal. Bhatta says that in all negotiations with India since 1950, Nepal’s position has always been weak, which has led to unequal agreements.  There are also boundary disputes in Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura areas. The issue is being discussed bilaterally, but without much progress. But former ambassador Rae believes issues between the two countries can be resolved through dialogue and negotiation “while keeping in mind the concerns and interests” of both the sides.  India’s sustained influence over Nepal’s internal politics has also been a widely discussed and criticized subject.  Yes, India had supported Nepali political parties during major political movements, but it is also true that New Delhi has sometimes tried to dictate Nepal’s internal politics.   Rae says India has always backed the aspiration of the Nepali people for a multiparty democracy. He disagrees that India meddles in Nepal’s internal affairs.  “India has been closely associated with each phase of Nepal’s political and economic transformation,” he says. From the Delhi pact of 1950 to the first Janandolan of 1989-90, Rae points out, “from the peace process that began in 2005 to an agreement between Nepal government and Madhes-based parties in 2007.”  Nepal has always tried to decrease its dependence on India, mainly on trade, and thereby temper India’s clout.  Baral, former Nepali ambassador to India, says Nepal adopted the policy of trade diversification but instead of boosting domestic productivity it led to further increase in imports. Nepal’s economy became weak as a result and dependence on India only increased.  Nepal has also signed the Transit and Transport Treaty with China but, again, to no visible benefit for the Himalayan country.  UML leader Bhatta partly blames India for the swelling trade imbalance. “As a close neighbor India has a certain responsibility to settle tariff and non-tariff barriers along with offering quotas for Nepali products—which it has not done.”  A lot has changed in the past seven decades. India’s influence in South Asia has waned with the rise of China, another close neighbor of Nepal.  China and India are the two major players in South Asia, as well as regional rivals, and each wants Nepal on its side.  A senior Indian government official says New Delhi’s major concern is China’s growing influence in Nepal’s internal politics.  The historical Nepal-India ties stand at a crossroads, particularly given the tense relations between India and China.  Of late, the US has also increased its activities in Nepal in a bid to counter China.   India is closely watching the growing US-China competition in Kathmandu. But Rae  is optimistic  “The future of Nepal-India relations,” Rae adds, “will certainly be better than what they were in the past.”