Submit your Article

Given the limited expectations from his visit, the three-day India trip of Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba was a bit of a mixed bag. Easily the most notable agreement was the one allowing more export of Nepali electricity to India, and potentially even to Bhutan and Bangladesh under the Bangladesh-Bhutan-India-Nepal (BBIN) framework. Save for that, the trip achieved precious little.

PM Deuba’s delegation made much of the fact that the border row had been raised in bilateral talks with Narendra Modi. But then the end result was the same-old commitment to settle the issue through existing bilateral mechanisms. India’s reluctance to include the border issue in the final joint statement (which never came), also suggests that it is in no mood for concession. Nor was there any mention of the pending EPG report that the Indian prime minister has refused to receive.

On Pancheshwar, too, the same old bromides were repeated. There were also moments of controversy. For instance, the Nepali prime minister chose to visit the headquarters of the ruling Indian party while making no effort to reach out to any of the main opposition parties. While many Nepali Congress leaders tend to frown upon the cozy relations of Nepali communists with their Chinese counterparts, this was also unbecoming of the leader of Nepal’s oldest democratic party.

Despite Deuba’s visit, Nepal-India relations are still passing through difficult times, something that has continued since India’s 2015-16 border blockade. So long as India does not show the willingness to listen to Nepal's concerns—on the border, on the ever-widening trade deficit, on the EPG, and on not favoring hydropower built solely with its investment—it is hard to expect Nepal-India ties to improve much.

India has been increasingly concerned about the possibility of Nepal slipping out of its influence and going into the Chinese camp. That is a remote possibility given the deep and multi-faceted Nepal-India ties, whatever the political persuasions of the ruling parties in Kathmandu. Nevertheless, irrespective of the hardening of China’s Nepal stand in recent times, India’s reluctance to help Nepal overcome its pressing problems will continue to make it look north for help. 

Nepal has only two neighbors and yet struggles mighty hard to balance them. Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba leaves for India shortly after Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s Kathmandu sojourn. Wang’s visit was not very fruitful: the very basis of Nepal-China cooperation in recent times, the BRI, did not even find a mention in the subsequent foreign ministry statement. With no substantial achievement, the two sides tried to salvage the trip by announcing a slew of what are essentially meaningless agreements.

China is highly suspicious of the Deuba government, which it sees as pro-US. The Chinese also believe that the Americans are increasingly in cahoots with India to curtail China’s influence in South Asia and beyond. So Deuba’s trip south will be closely watched in Beijing. China understands that Nepal cannot afford to have bad relations with India. What it does not want is for Nepal to enter what it labels the ‘US-India nexus’ and thereby compromise Chinese security interests. Nepalis otherwise expect little from Deuba’s trip south.

New Delhi knows that with elections around the corner, Deuba could soon be out of its Nepal picture. Deuba for his part is unsure about what to discuss this time with India. Progress on some connectivity projects are still expected, including joint inauguration of the Kurtha-Jayanagar cross-border railway. But progress on long-pending projects like Pancheswar are unlikely.

Nepali prime ministers have traditionally made New Delhi their first foreign stopover after assuming office. The pandemic had delayed Deuba’s customary visit. Routines are important, especially in the case of India and Nepal that share extensive links. But precisely for the same reason there is also much expectation when the two leaders meet.

India still emphasizes the age-old ‘roti beti’ and civilizational links. But it has been reluctant to cover even the basics to improve ties, for instance by allowing more Nepali products into its markets, something that would enormously help Nepal as it struggles to balance its books. The EPG report has long been pending. Vital bilateral projects remain stalled. Nepal-China ties have suffered during Deuba’s latest tenure. But Nepal-India ties have not fared much better as well. Tragically, maintenance of the status quo will have to be seen as an ‘achievement’ of Deuba’s visit.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s upcoming Nepal visit (March 25-27) is a great opportunity to repair the strained bilateral ties. Nepal-China relations have been through choppy waters of late, hitting rock bottom after the parliamentary endorsement of the MCC compact. China publicly expressed its displeasure with the endorsement. Unconvinced the compact is not part of a larger American encirclement plan, Beijing also seems to believe that the current Deuba government is ‘pro-US’.

It won’t be easy to convince the Chinese that Nepal can prevent the compact’s undue use. Not that we should not try. Beijing had been led to believe that under no circumstance would the compact be endorsed. They would not have been happy with the way the last-minute American pressure seemed to have prevailed over their concerns. But Nepal and China have no option but to mend fences. China is Nepal’s one of only two neighbors and its only direct connection with the outside world besides India. For China, stability of Tibet remains a top priority—and something that will be difficult to ensure without Nepal’s help.

When Wang comes, Nepal is likely to ask for grants to build the nine projects agreed under the BRI. Though grants under the BRI are rare, China could still make a one-time exception to protect its traditional space in Nepal against American encroachment. If Nepal and China are indeed good friends, as each claims, they should understand each other’s compulsions. Moreover, there is not one bilateral issue between them that cannot be resolved through dialogue.

As a show of good faith, the Deuba government must immediately correct its mistake of not appointing an envoy to Beijing, something that has bothered the Chinese. Wang should also give a clear message that China respects sovereign Nepal’s decision, however unpalatable it might have been. It is also vital that during this visit Wang makes an effort to engage leaders from across the political spectrum and not be seen as favoring only those of certain persuasions. Such confidence-building measures will help increase trust on both sides. They will also create a positive momentum.

We believe the music video of Prakash Saput’s new song ‘Pir’—as well as the debate around it—reflects growing maturity of Nepali society. The video focuses on a former Maoist couple and their little daughter who are pushed into poverty post-rebellion. While many of the rebel leaders reaped political rewards after the start of the peace process, most of the rank and file were left to fend for themselves. Troubled by her family’s penury, the wife pictured in the video decides to head abroad in search of work. There, she realizes that manpower agents have duped her. 

The desolate husband wants to get his beleaguered wife back into the country. But his repeated pleas to high-ranking government officials—including a former Maoist leader who is now a minister—fall on deaf ears. In a scene, the lonely husband is shown visiting a prostitute, only to discover that she too was a former Maoist fighter. The depiction of a former Maoist fighter as a prostitute has riled many ex-Maoists. But Baburam Bhattarai, the brain behind the rebellion, has praised the song that speaks of the urgent need to finish an ‘incomplete revolution’.

A democratic society should allow artists to push the boundaries of freedom and the bar for restricting such freedom must be high. Even before this, there have been important debates around such boundary-pushing music videos: one questioning the tradition of women fasting for the longevity of their husbands, the other lampooning ‘looting’ political leaders. They were controversial too but generated some much-needed debate for the same reason.

The ‘Pir’ music video also speaks of the need to repeatedly question history. Few other topics are as divisive in Nepal as the ‘people’s war’ that claimed 17,000 lives. Only by continuing to question its relevance and achievements will the country learn the right lessons and avoid a similar catastrophe. Artists with mass appeal are perfectly placed to raise these vital issues. And it is only right that they do so. Why should our music videos be only about cotton-candy love?