Submit your Article

Kitab Publication published two books written by Sudheer Sharma on Sept 15. First, “Monks, Business and Rebellion: Nepal’s Bhot-China Relationship and India”. Second, “The Storm across the Himalayas: The Changing Nepal-China Relationship after the Republic.” After reading both the books here I have attempted to provide a review of the first one. Sharma, a well-known figure in Nepali media, appears to have done deep research for this 376-page book. This book is organized in seven sections including an epilogue. 

Nepal-Tibet relations and Chinese domination

The book begins by chronicling Nepal-Tibet trade relations dating back to the 7th century, noting Nepal’s diplomatic presence in Tibet for over 374 years. Despite ups and downs, the relationship took a pivotal turn in 1856 with the signing of the 10-point ‘Thapathali Treaty’ after Nepal’s invasion of Tibet. This treaty made Tibet a protectorate of Nepal, which raised concerns for China. A tripartite agreement followed, recognizing both Nepal and Tibet as under the Chinese emperor’s authority.

As China increased its military presence in Tibet by 1968, tensions escalated for Nepal. Historical records in the book reveal that China viewed Nepal as a potential part of its sphere of influence, even offering Nepal a place in its union of five ethnic groups (Han, Manchu, Mongol, Tibetan, and Muslim). Sun Yat-sen, the father of the Republic of China, even listed Nepal among China’s ‘lost territories.’ These accounts challenge the popular belief that Nepal was spared from Chinese domination, a sentiment that has lingered in Nepal’s historical narrative.

To counter the Chinese threat, Nepal sought British recognition as an independent nation, formalized in a 1923 treaty. Until the 1950s, Tibet was Nepal’s immediate northern neighbor, with whom it shared deep cultural, economic, and strategic ties. It wasn’t until China annexed Tibet that Nepal found itself facing a new geopolitical reality. While many fear the ‘Sikkimization’ of Nepal following India’s annexation of Sikkim, Sharma’s book argues that China’s annexation of Tibet and its desire to dominate Nepal receive less attention. Through historical evidence, the book sheds light on China’s expansionist approach toward Nepal.

Sharma also explores the influence of Chinese leader Mao Zedong in Nepal during the 1950s. Maoist ideology started spreading in Nepal, and by 2004, Gangalal founded the 'Lal Communist Party,' influenced by Mao’s ideas. Though short-lived, this marked the beginning of communist interest in China within Nepal. By the late 1950s, China became a political shrine for Nepali communist leaders, who were drawn to its propaganda and the spread of the Chinese language, which carried political undertones. The book’s fifth chapter, ‘Circus,’ examines how China used language education as a tool to indoctrinate Nepalis, with the first lessons being “Long live Chairman Mao” and “Down with American imperialism.”

Mahendra’s elusive nationalism

The chapter ‘Mao and Mahendra’ focuses on Nepal-India relations, particularly the controversial 1950 Friendship Treaty. Sharma portrays King Mahendra as having two distinct personas: one as the architect of modern Nepali diplomacy and the other as a ruler who curtailed democracy to consolidate power. His nationalist stance is scrutinized, particularly in relation to India. While Mahendra is credited with removing most of the Indian military camps in Nepal, Sharma questions his motives, suggesting that Mahendra used nationalism to preserve the monarchy rather than genuinely serve Nepal's interests.

Contrasting Mahendra’s nationalism with the actions of Prime Minister BP Koirala, the book highlights Koirala’s balanced foreign policy approach. For example, when Nehru tried to engage Koirala in a united front against China, Koirala resisted, choosing instead to maintain equilibrium between India and China. The book also revisits Mahendra’s controversial decision to cede part of Mount Everest to China, undermining his nationalist image.

Preserving the monarchy

Sharma argues that Mahendra strengthened ties with China not out of ideological alignment but as a strategy to counterbalance India’s influence. The book also shows how Mahendra cultivated relations with the United States to further his geopolitical goals. During his 1960 visit to the US, just months before imposing the Panchayat system, Mahendra received a warm welcome at the White House and secured substantial financial support. Shortly after, he overthrew the democratically elected government, signaling a shift towards authoritarianism.

The sixth chapter, ‘Rajtantra ko Samyawadi Saino,’ discusses how successive Nepali monarchs, including Mahendra, Birendra, and Gyanendra, maintained strong ties with China. Sharma’s analysis suggests that the monarchy strategically used these relationships to preserve its power. Interestingly, despite its title focusing on Nepal’s relations with Tibet, China, and India, the book’s chapter on US involvement, particularly during the Mustang rebellion, leads the reader to feel that “America” should have also been featured in the title.

Once a new government is installed in Kathmandu, deliberations on Nepal-India relations take the center stage of national politics.  However, attempts have been made for a long time to find a permanent solution to the problems seen in Nepal-India relations. Be it the border dispute or the friendship treaty of 1950 and others, there have been a long series of discussions between the two countries. In this context, the Eminent Persons Group’s (EPG) report is currently being discussed in Nepal at a level that has once again achieved par. After the formation of the new government consisting of the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, when the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nepal, Arzu Rana Deuba went on an official visit to India, questions were raised about whether Minister Deuba would raise the issue of the EPG report. Same concerns were raised with the erstwhile governments. While releasing a book written by one of the members of EPG, Suryanath Upadhyay; on Sept 7, PM Oli expressed his belief that the Indian prime minister would receive the EPG report, despite the fact that the current government does not appear to have made a formal comment on it. The prime minister’s commentary carries meaning in bilateral matters, whether it is at a book launch or in other casual settings. Importantly, it has extra significance because the current prime minister and India have a turbulent past.

Is it accurate, nevertheless, that this report is being discussed aggressively in Nepal? In what way does this report matter for Nepal? Shall Nepal be adhered to this report? The purpose of this article is to depict how, during the last six years, the EPG report has been seen as an enigma and what path Nepal needs to tread on.

Formation and flux

In the year 2011, when Baburam Bhattarai was the prime minister, during his visit to India, the proposal to form EPG was made public through a joint statement. The purpose of the proposal was to further strengthen multi-dimensional relations between the two countries. The then prime minister of India, Manmohan Singh, also agreed to this. Five years later, in 2016, there was a formal agreement on the formation of EPG. After the announcement of the EPG, the group held a meeting in Kathmandu and formally started the study. The mandates assigned to the EPG were to analyze previous treaties, mostly the 1950’s treaty and agreements between the two countries. In a similar vein, to suggest essential actions to improve the social-economic, political, and cultural ties as well as mutual trust between the two nations.

Likewise, suggesting other areas required for fostering and bolstering friendship between the two countries, as well as institutional frameworks for ties and steps to eradicate cross-border crime while boosting peace, prosperity, and cordiality. The EPG held a total of nine meetings in both countries and approved the report of the EPG in 2018. On behalf of Nepal, Bhekh Bahadur Thapa (coordinator), Rajan Bhattarai, Nilambar Acharya, and Suryanath Upadhyaya were members. Bhagat Singh Kosiari (coordinator), Jayanta Prasad, Mahendra P Lama, and Bhuvanchandra Upreti, members from India, are in the group. The EPG members agreed to submit the approved report to the Prime Minister of India first and then to the Prime Minister of Nepal. After six years, the Indian side has not received the report.

Following the adoption of the 2015 Constitution of Nepal, the UML, led by KP Sharma Oli, formed the government. The Nepali Congress was out of power. The Madhesh-centric parties were agitating because of dissatisfaction with the fast-tracking of the constitution. Nepal and India's political ties were not harmonious. Given this context, the formation of the EPG between Delhi and Kathmandu was created purely for ‘political face saving’ of each side. The agitated Madhes based parties resisted the formation of the EPG without a broader consultation. The EPG was meant to assess the boundary between India and Nepal, but instead it is controlled by leftists, with not a single person from borderland included. The formation of EPG and its procedure seems to be divisive prima facie inside Nepal.

Don’t be stuck; be strategic 

Despite the political and diplomatic ups and downs, there has been no decrease in the intensity of economic exchanges and people-to-people relations between the two countries.

The India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship  was signed by the last Rana prime minister of Nepal, Mohan Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana, and the then Indian ambassador to Nepal, Chandreshwor Prasad Narayan Singh on 31 July 1950 and came into force the same day. However, the Treaty of 1950 was engulfed in controversy before its ink had even dried. That controversy kept coming to the surface from time to time. The controversy mostly comes from ‘communist-oriented intellectuals’ and from those who believe in the nationalism shaped by the late king Mahendra. As a result, this issue remained an important issue in the relationship between the two countries. Undoubtedly, the treaty signed by the prime minister from the Nepalese side and the Ambassador from the Indian side reflects prima facie inequality. Similarly, in the report of EPG, Nepal has put forward a proposal that some articles of the peace and friendship treaty of 1950, such as 5, 6, and 7, are not up-to-date.

The way the Nepali members of EPG have been leaking  the contents of the report in various programs from time to time shows how impatient the members are, and it also cannot be said that there will be no influence of other external forces against India while the EPG study is going on. As some of Nepal's former foreign ministers and members of EPG sometimes make irresponsible comments in programs organized by various NGOs and institutions, Nepal should now make this report public, albeit unilaterally. This appears to be strategically weak and a violation of EPG’s privacy. This will only give India a space to act more tactically.

By the time the EPG group is formed and it completes its studies, India has a government led by Narendra Modi. During this period, a government was formed in Nepal under the leadership of KP Sharma Oli, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, or Sher Bahadur Deuba. However, none of the prime ministers have been proven instrumental in handing over the EPG report. In the recent past, UML Chair Oli, who led a powerful and stable government and became the main opposition, raised the issue of EPG from the rostrum in the Parliament, but this report was not prioritized even during Oli's tenure. Now is the time, and like the EPG members, the prime minister who understands the seriousness of the relationship between Nepal and India should discuss the relationship between the two countries better than commenting in informal forums. The jingoism between Nepal and India should be ended by fundamentally solving the enigma of EPG.

Incidentally, the Nepali Congress, the largest party of Nepal, is also in the role of an ally in the journey of driving the country along with the Oli government. The current coalition government can hold talks with the government of India. Finally and above all, it seems relevant that everyone remembers the analogy given by diplomat Madhurman Acharya to India in relation to Nepal. He depicts in his book, Nepal World View: ‘India is a kalpbriksha, the tree that gives you the fruit you wish. If handled carefully, India provides many solutions to Nepal’s problem. But when the wrath of the bigger neighbor becomes difficult to manage, it can be the source of trouble as well.’

@randhirJNK

On June 7, the CPN-UML and Nepali Congress reached a seven-point consensus to form a coalition government. Days later, KP Sharma Oli cited these points from the rostrum of the Federal Parliament. While most of the agreement focuses on equitable power-sharing, it also solidifies that parties with different political ideologies will govern together for the foreseeable future. Notably, the second point of the agreement emphasizes that the national consensus government will prioritize amending the Constitution and enacting laws to ensure political stability, rather than merely reviewing the strengths, weaknesses, and complexities that have emerged since its enactment.

Given Madhes' significant political influence from the first Constituent Assembly until the Constitution's promulgation, it is crucial to gauge the political sentiments of the region. Politically, some Madhes-centric parties have already backed the Congress-UML coalition, some have stakes in the federal government, one party leads the Madhes Province, and others are still vying for federal government participation. This article aims to address two key questions: How will the Madhes Province handle the constitutional amendment issue presented by the two parties? And what kind of constitutional amendments does Madhes seek?

Madhes’ cautious approach

To understand the political pulse of Madhes Province, I spoke with Dr Vijay Singh, Vice-president of the Tarai Madhes Democratic Party and a former member of the Constituent Assembly. When asked about his party’s stance on the UML-Congress coalition’s agreement to amend the Constitution, Dr Singh welcomed the initiative but stressed the need for a thorough review of what needs to be amended. He criticized the leaders of major parties who blame the mixed electoral system for the existing electoral issues, arguing that the current system has no inherent flaws. Dr Singh pointed out that since 1991, all elections before the Constituent Assembly used the first-past-the-post (FPTP) method, which led to imbalanced, unstable, and weak government structures, underrepresentation of marginalized communities, and greater dominance of the ‘Khas-Arya’ community. In contrast, proportional representation ensures that diverse societal groups, including marginalized communities, are adequately represented.

Dr Singh also highlighted an inconsistency in the Constitution: the upper house of parliament allows for 59 members, with three appointed by the cabinet in addition to an equal number of MPs elected by each province. This setup does not align with the principles of inclusivity, as provinces with vastly different populations elect the same number of representatives. He suggested that the Indian model, where each state is guaranteed one seat in the upper house and the remaining seats are allocated based on population, could be more appropriate. Additionally, Dr. Singh called for a review of the gerrymandered electoral constituencies in the southern plains, which have been manipulated by major political parties.

Ram Saroj Yadav, a Constituent Assembly member and Nepali Congress representative in the Provincial Assembly, echoed similar concerns. He and other party members oppose any alterations to the proportional representation provision, which guarantees inclusive representation from the provincial to the federal level. Yadav stressed that Nepal’s diverse society gives regional parties a unique role in the nation, and any attempt to undermine federalism could trigger a major revolt.

Recently, Satish Singh, the Chief Minister of Madhes Province, submitted a 22-point demand to Prime Minister Oli for the development of Madhes. This highlights the province’s lack of sufficient resources and authority for its development. According to Deepak Sah, Vice-president of the Janmat Party, while Janmat supports the current coalition, they will fiercely resist any attempt by the government to backtrack on the achievements enshrined in the Constitution.

Meanwhile, UML and other national party leaders are optimistic about constitutional revisions to promote political stability, though they acknowledge the challenges of fostering development under the current framework. Historically, Nepal’s national parties have struggled to address regional identity issues, and Madhes remains particularly sensitive to any curtailment of regional party rights.

The road ahead

Electorally, the influence of Madhes-centric parties has diminished since 2017. The CPN-UML and Nepali Congress have overtaken the Janata Samajbadi Party and Loktantrik Samajbadi Party, the two major Madhes-based parties, to become the largest and second-largest parties in the province, respectively. This shift reflects growing discontent with political figures and representatives rather than with the system itself. Within Madhes-centric parties, formal and informal debates are ongoing about whether the larger national parties are attempting to sideline smaller, regional parties under the pretext of constitutional revision.

The Constitution of Nepal envisions a framework based on federalism, republicanism, secularism, and inclusivity, with fundamental rights, proportional representation, and inclusivity at its core. While there are voices in Madhes Province arguing against secularism, their political influence is minimal, and Madhes-centric parties, along with other parties, have generally supported secularism.

A constitution’s strength lies in its ability to reflect the values of the people it governs. Madhes has a significant stake in the Constitution of Nepal, having revolted in 2007 after the interim constitution was issued without mentioning federalism—an omission that cost 57 protesters their lives. The devastating 2015 earthquake prompted major political parties to sign a 16-point agreement to promulgate the Constitution, but this agreement was seen by some as a calculated move to undermine federalism. The Supreme Court ultimately mandated the promulgation of a new Constitution, which included provisions for provincial power-sharing and federal boundaries. Advocate Dipendra Jha noted that Nepal’s Constitution was created as a “constitution of winners and losers,” rather than one reflecting everyone’s sentiments.

Now, the same parties that dominated the Constituent Assembly and shaped the Constitution are attempting to amend it. It is crucial to eliminate the mindset of "winners and losers" and address past injustices. For Madhes, the amendment process represents an opportunity to ensure that the Constitution truly reflects the needs and aspirations of all Nepalis.

The author is associated with Peace Development Research Center [PDRC]