Submit your Article

 How would you respond to the criticism that President Bhandari often oversteps her constitution­al limits?

It is the president’s duty to abide by and protect the constitution and to promote national unity. As far as the issue of the president meeting ministers or leaders is concerned, they take place at the request of these ministers and leaders. If an individual or group seeks an appointment, the president has to give them time and listen to them. If the president cannot even meet political leaders and people from various walks to discuss contempo­rary national issues, why do we need the president’s office at all? What she is doing is entirely constitution­al. You cannot give a single example of President Bhandari acting like an executive president, as she has been criticized in some quarters of doing. In the past, too, President Ram Baran Yadav used to meet polit­ical leaders, also on constitutional matters. Such meetings and consul­tations come under normal practice. So let us not protest for the heck of it and drag this hallowed institution into controversy.

What about the allegation that she has tried to influence the functioning of the ruling Nepal Communist Party, for instance by inviting its top leaders for a meeting when a separate NCP standing committee meeting was going on?

We have to be clear on these issues. First, the NCP standing committee meeting got extended beyond the scheduled time. Some of the com­mittee leaders had already sought an appointment with the president and they kept their appointment. Other government officials were also pres­ent at the meeting and they together discussed issues of national interest.

Did the president call the meet­ing or did the leaders seek it themselves?

The leaders sought an appoint­ment with the president, and not the other way round. Those leaders who met the president had also informed the party’s standing committee that they would do so.

The president has also been accused of trying to run the gov­ernment by proxy, for instance by picking her own favorite as the next House speaker.

The president has no such right. It is the responsibility of the parlia­ment and political parties to elect the new speaker. In democratic countries, political parties drive the parliamentary process. The presi­dent has no role in this whatsoever.

Did President Bhandari act as a guarantor of honest implemen­tation of the gentleman’s agree­ment between PM KP Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal?

No, the president played no such role. PM Oli and party Chair Dahal frequently go to meet the president. In fact, Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba and senior leader Ram Chandra Poudel can also meet the president. I don’t think either PM Oli or party Chairman Dahal consider themselves so polit­ically weak that they have to seek the president’s mediation. They are capable of settling these issues on their own.

You deny every allegation lev­eled against the president. If she is blameless, why the constant barrage of criticism against her?

See, Nepali Congress has not spoken about it. Even other fringe opposition parties including Mad­hes-based parties have not said any­thing about the president. Most of the criticism against her comes from within the ruling Nepal Communist Party. Some leaders who are not sat­isfied with PM Oli are venting their ire on the president. They forget that the president is an institution, the protector of the constitution. It is not about a particular individual.

What about one after another media report about the presi­dent’s alleged extra-constitution­al steps?

The media should play the role of watchdog. They should not indulge in yellow journalism. If there are bad things happening, they can write about them, but only on an objec­tive basis. Journalism is a sensitive area and even a small mistake can create huge problems. Look at what happened with the Hrithik Roshan incident. All reporting should be fact-based. Without fact-based jour­nalism, the society will face many troubles. The problem right now is that negative mindset prevails everywhere.

We also get to hear rumors about the ailing PM Oli handing over executive powers to President Bhandari.

How can the president exer­cise executive rights? Is there any constitutional provision to do so? Absolutely not. It is possible only if you destroy the current consti­tution. The constitution provides all executive rights to the prime minister. To be prime minister, first you have to be a member of par­liament, and the president is not. Without becoming an MP, how can she become an executive? Until and unless this constitution is function­al, the president cannot take up executive rights.

But can’t the constitution be amended?

Is it possible to amend the consti­tution for the same? Will all parties agree to it? I do not see any such pos­sibility. Even if the parliament does so, the people and the society won’t accept it. Our president has not even thought about this issue. It is a ploy to defame the prime minister as well as the president’s office. The prime minister is somewhat sick but he is still very capable of steering the country in the right direction.

Who then is benefiting by drag­ging the president into contro­versy?

There are many people and con­servative forces that are displeased with the current political dispen­sation and the constitution. Some external forces too are against this constitution. Soon after the consti­tution was promulgated, there was a blockade. People who opposed the constitution in 2015 now accept it. In history, there have been several instances where internal and exter­nal forces worked to sabotage the constitution and democracy. There is another factor as well. In the histo­ry of Nepal, almost all governments that were toppled were brought down not due to opposition parties but due to intra-party rifts. Now, KP Oli is facing difficulties from his own party leaders.

So the ruling party leaders are themselves trying to drag the president into controversy?

Yes, there have been such attempts. As I said, opposition par­ties have no problem with the func­tioning of the president.

One common criticism of the president is that her caval­cade often obstructs traffic and makes people’s life difficult. Why doesn’t the president’s office lis­ten to public criticism?

Nepal Army has taken the full responsibility for the president’s security as she is their ceremonial chief. We even consulted the army chief about the traffic issue. “If there is a security lapse tomorrow, who will take responsibility?” the army chief asked us in return. He added that the army will have to give full-fledged security to the president. We proposed some concessions to provide relief to the people but the army was adamant. This is not only the case of Nepal, it happens in oth­er countries as well. It is the security bodies that assess security risks, and it is not for the president to say what level of security they need. Even in normal times, people face traffic jams. But if there is 10-20 minute delay during the president’s visit, we get agitated. We have to respect the organization. Again, this is not about an individual.

Does the president heed the sug­gestions of advisors like you?

The president spends hours seek­ing advice from us on respective areas. She is very receptive to our ideas.

There are also complaints about the president’s opulent lifestyle, for instance about her penchant for new vehicles, her helicopter travels, and her office seeking greater space.

The only vehicle added in the president’s office in the past two years is one electric car, which costs no more than 5-6 million rupees. All other vehicles are old. There are talks of the president getting a new helicopter. But the office has not bought any. She uses the army’s heli­copter, which is old and without any air-conditioning. So far as the issue of land for Sheetal Niwas expansion is concerned, the process was ini­tiated during Ram Baran Yadav’s tenure when there was a Nepali Congress-led government. Now, if the president stops this process, people will say the president has become active.

How difficult is it for the presi­dent to stay completely neutral in a thoroughly politicized soci­ety like Nepal?

There is saying that democracy is one of the worst systems but there is also no better system. The political system remains within the demo­cratic framework. It is also true that a president cannot be elected with­out the support of political parties. As the president comes from a par­ticular party, the party always seeks some benefit from the office. This is so everywhere. There is always party pressure.

Why have the president’s advi­sors like you been largely silent when she is being so widely crit­icized?

If we speak, people say that the president is becoming active. They say that the advisors are supposed to give suggestions to the presi­dent, not defend her. Yet, they crit­icize us when we speak. It is not easy for us

How do we understand India’s recent Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Reg­ister of Citizens (NRC)?

Apart from Nepal, all South Asian states emerged from the colonial rule. In 1947, when the British left the subcontinent, all of them got new independent identities. Ban­gladesh came into being in 1971. In between, Sikkim was merged with India. In that sense, Nepal is the oldest, never-colonized nation-state in the sub-continent. Looking at the current debates in India on who are Indians and who constitute India, there are two historical inflection points.

One was in 1947 when India and Pakistan were born. The other landmark is the 1971 creation of Bangladesh. Who is an Indian? All those living in India during the time of British departure are Indians. The nation-states emerged after 1947, and there is constant churn in the Indian subcontinent about this idea of citizenry and who belongs where. Populations are still in a flux. Plus, even the Indian union’s international boundaries are being challenged in places like Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh. At the same time, externally, after 70 years, the sub-continent is still in the making.

In 1947, about 10 million people migrated to India, in what was the biggest population movement in history. Then millions of refugees were forced out in 1971 from today’s Bangladesh when it was East Paki­stan. India was the natural home for all these populations. In a sense, the current move is to settle the popula­tion. But is it possible to ignore that some people have been living in the same place for the past 70 years?

What do you make of the implan­tation of the NRC in Assam?

The NRC came out in 1980s when Rajiv Gandhi and Prafulla Kumar Mahant negotiated in the wake of the Assam movement (1979-1985) against immigrants. Assam had received many people from Bangla­desh and those threatened by other population movements in the rest of India. Who is son of soil (Bhumipu­tra)? That was the core issue of the Assam movement in the 1980s. Rajiv Gandhi negotiated with them, and the idea for National Registration of Citizens was born.

Since then the Assamese have been asking for the implementa­tion of the Rajiv-Prafulla accord that decides who is Assamese and who is not. The Supreme Court then asked the Indian government to start the registry. According to the NRC, you have to prove your birth and pro­longed stay in a place.

That created problems because besides the indigenous people and minorities, many outsiders have come and settled in Assam. But as these outsiders could not produce the requisite documents, two mil­lion people are not registered. It was hard in terms of time and money, and created anxiety among minori­ties. This is precisely the moment the two-third BJP majority govern­ment decided to act. Why this par­ticular moment? They wanted to isolate the minority community.

The Indian government says it wants to kick out illegal immi­grants. Who are these illegal immigrants?

The countries adjoining Assam are all Muslim countries. Recently, the influx of Rohingya refuges to Bangladesh and from Bangladesh to India has highlighted the salience of the NRC. This is strange. India has always been open for refugees and those from Tibet and even Pakistan have been welcomed. The people who came to India in 1947 were not refugees but forcefully displaced because of partition. They became refugees after a government Act. The NRC in Assam is complicated by the fact that outgoing chief justice of India Ranjan Gogai is also Assamese. Instead of taking a judicial stance, he looked at the issue from national security perspective while deciding about Rohigya and the NRC.

Therefore the NRC was imple­mented with a legal background, perhaps as the fulfillment of the Rajiv-Prafulla agreement as the native populations saw it.

What about the fate of around 500,000 Nepali-speaking people in Assam?

When the NRC process was going on in Assam, so was the election campaign. The election gave over­whelming majority to Modi-Shah party. I remember Amit Shah speak­ing in Darjeeling wearing a Nepal cap and addressing the Nepali-speaking population, called Gorkha popu­lation. Nepali identity in India is always riddled with problems because there is Nepali homeland for Nepali-speaking people, which is Nepal.

The idea of homeland always cre­ates a problem for people resid­ing in another country that speaks a foreign language. If you have a homeland where your language and family and ancestors originate, you belong to them, you belong there. Therefore, it is interesting the way Gorkha identity was invented in Darjeeling and many parts of India and even in Burma. People would play on the idea of homeland. So, as Amit Shah said during the elections, Gorkhas need not fear, as they are Hindus. He could have said you have been here for over 70 years, and hence you are our citizens. But he did not say that.

What are the difficulties in reg­istration for the Nepali-speaking community in Assam?

From our side, we need to be politically correct while describing the Nepali-speaking people across the border. We assume they are Nepali and we create problems for them. The Nepali-speaking popula­tion faces the crisis of citizenship in the Northeast, even with the NRC. The Citizenship Amendment Act will not capture them because they are not refugees. Nepalis went there a century ago as economic migrants. They settled there and contributed to the Indian economy. The new CAA talks about forced refugees coming from a couple of neighbor­ing countries and it is not applicable to Nepali-speaking community. But the NRC does matter to them.

The NRC is a cumber­some process, a kind of proof that you are work­ing here, you own land, you belong to this land. But people are always on the move for jobs. The Nepali-speaking community is a pio­neering commu­nity establishing Assam as an agri­culture land. But the Nepali-speak­ing population also lack documents required to claim citi­zenry. Three to five lakhs is a big number. Where do they go? If your name is not there, you will be immediately sent to a camp. I do not know how many people went to camp but the possibility is immi­nent. You become aliens in your own place where you have been for over half a century. Under normal citizenship law, if you live in a coun­try for 1-15 years, you are entitled to something. The current registration is very problematic. For example, an elder brother is included but the younger brother is not, a wife is but her husband is not, a father is but his daughter is not.

In Burma, Nepali speaking Bur­mese have started giving themselves two names: One Burmese name and another Nepali name. Why? In census, if you say you are a Nepali, the Burmese authorities can say that since you are from Nepal you have to go back. In both Assam and Myanmar, they have a homeland, i.e. Nepal, and the government can say you have to go back. Then they become stateless because even we do not recognize them. So the NRC is basically creating statelessness. It is a fascist mentality, manifest of a tension between identity politics and citizenry politics.

But, theoretically, what is the harm in keeping a registry of your people?

Theoretically, it looks fine. But there are different ways of doing it. Some argue that it is like a demone­tization process because everybody has to be in a line to prove their citizenship. Is it possible?

Is the CAA singularly targeted at Muslims? Otherwise, why are the Christians, who are seen by hardcore Hindus in Nepal as a threat to their identity, exempt­ed under India’s CAA?

At the heart of the current dis­pensation in India is the BJP and many of its leaders especially Modi and Shah who have been socialized as RSS Pracharaks. There is a big debate on whether the BJP is RSS. But the intellectual and cultural sources or understanding of Indian history and civilization comes from the RSS. They believe that India is a Hindu-majority country. Their ori­entation is that Gandhi and Nehru cheated on India by giving Pakistan to Muslims but not ‘Bharat’ to Hin­dus.

But it has a colonial legacy. There is no Christian India. Christians are not a threat to them but Muslim Pakistan is. Again, they think Paki­stan is for Muslims but there is no parallel state for Hindus.

So there is a psychology of loss or loss of self. They want to cre­ate a Hindu- self. This is precisely what has happened in Kashmir. When Kashmir was negotiated, it was given special status and was always seen as Muslim-majority. Their reading was that giving special status to the Muslim majority would undervalue the Hindu-majority in Jammu. Even in local areas, there are Muslim pockets. Muslims are a threat for them.

But if there is no minority, there is no democracy. If there is no dis­sent, there is no democracy. If all things are the same color, there is no democracy. Democracy in Pakistan has a problem because everybody is the same. Diversity and pluralism are the fundamentals of democracy.

Is there a possibility of the Modi government’s religious experi­ments being repeated in Nepal?

What happens in India always affects us. Both good and bad things flow from the south. But there are differences between Nepal’s idea of Hinduism and India’s idea of Hin­dutva. In our society we practice Sanatani Hinduism. It means our local customs and practices inform the idea of Hinduism. For example, eggs and meet are offered at our Ganesh temples. In India, religious rituals and practices are different. So what we are practicing is Hindu Santan tradition. Ours is not sani­tized Hinduism or pure Hinduism, but mixed with different cultures. Hindutva is politics. We do not do politics in the name of religion here.

We did try politics based on reli­gion by introducing the threat of Christians but that did not play out well. But in India, Hindutva is propa­gated against Islam. In India religion is divisive or a fault-line, just like in the US race is a fault-line. In our country, religion is not a fault line so far. But if we learn bad things from India, it could become a fault-line.

There are fears that if the Mus­lims who are being persecuted in Northern India enter Nepal as refugees it could create security problems.

When you push someone against the wall, what will they do? They will find ways to get out. We have an open border. Nepal has always wel­comed people. In Nepal, foreigners are never suspected. Its character is welcoming that is why tourism is booming. I talk from experience. When foreigners traveled in rural areas we were never suspicious. In 1965, we welcomed Tibetan refu­gees. In 1971, we welcomed refugees from Bangladesh. We also welcomed Bhutanese refugees. I expect people will come. But to change the refugee question into national security ques­tion is an easy way out. It is a linear argument to say Muslim refugees are a national security issue. Big powers could ask us why we welcomed the people they chased out. On human­itarian ground, we should be ready to welcome them. I see it from a liberal framework. The government might decide otherwise but people should be welcoming

Nearly a year and half into the mega-communist merger, there seems to be no end to factionalism in the Nepal Communist Party.

Unfortunately, the message of growing factionalism is not good for the party or the country. People voted for the Nepal Communist Party with expectation of change in the country and in their daily life. Factional feuds have betrayed their trust and affected both party and government functioning. 

Why so many factions? 

It is difficult to say why factions thrive in political parties. However, there is a tendency in all political parties not to accommodate all leaders and cadres. People who are leading the party are guided by personal interests. Party leadership often prefer to confine themselves to a certain circle of leaders. Certain people influence overall politics. That is why factionalism flourishes. 

Will it be right to say that the process of the merger is still incomplete and that there are clear UML and Maoist lines in the party?

The situation is quite different. It seems that there could be consensus between former Maoist and UML on power sharing, from center to grass-roots. It would not be difficult to bridge the gap between the two and we have already settled several issues. The agreement between two parties before the unification is being implemented. More worrying are sub-factions within factions and exploiting those sub-factions to get to power in the government and the party. There is a tendency of putting pressure on leadership on the basis of factional power and position. Leaders from both former UML and Maoist parties engage in such behavior. This could sideline emerging and capable leaders as people from certain factions are likely to be elevated in party and government. 

What about the power-sharing deal between Prime Minister Oli and Chairman Dahal? Is that settled for now? 

Though late, this issue has been settled and it should be taken positively. The principle of one man one post has been implemented. This principle should be implemented in all structures and it has started from top leadership. Allocation of powers between two parties has helped speed up party works.   

Can we say that in party affairs Oli functions like a ceremonial chair while Dahal enjoys executive rights? 

I would not put it like that. When we arranged for two chairmen, there was no mention of ceremonial and executive chairman. There was no clear demarcation of authority between the two chairs. Both chairmen are executive but the nature of work and allocation of responsibilities differ. Now, Prachanda will help the prime minister to make government functioning effective, while PM Oli will help Prachanda make with party-related works. 

How long will this arrangement hold? 

This will be valid till another decision is made. We are planning our General Convention in a year’s time. It would be better if current agreement continues till the convention. But we cannot say anything about the convention’s outcome. 

There is still lack of clarity about selection of party leader from general convention. Will it be as per the power sharing agreement between Oli and Prachanda, or there will be free competition? Will Oli help Prachanda be party leader? 

I think there will be consensus between the two leaders. The party cannot progress without managing the unification between two parties and the existence of sub-factions. Only the electoral process cannot ensure representation of all capable leaders and cadres. Therefore the first convention of the united party will be held on the basis of consensual democratic process. 

Are you suggesting that Oli should help Dahal be the sole party chairman in the next general convention? 

We are hopeful that this happens. To make the party more united and dynamic, Prachanda needs to be elected chairman from the convention floor. But it does not mean Oli’s role in the party would be minimized because he is an elected party chair. The only option is drawing a clear line between the roles and responsibilities of PM Oli and Prachanda. 

PM’s health condition is badly affecting government functioning, isn’t it? 

Cabinet meetings have been held solely due to the strong willpower of the prime minister. Right now all we hope for is speedy recovery of PM Oli. 

Now is it settled that Dahal will not stake his claim for prime minister?

The party has entered a new chapter with the agreement between PM Oli and Prachanda about the allocation of responsibilities. Therefore, till the next decision, Oli will remain the prime minister and Prachanda the party’s executive head. 

You say there are no power-sharing disputes between former UML and Maoists. What about over the election of new Speaker? 

There have been intensive discussions in the party over this. The President has already summoned the House and we will take a decision soon. Decision will be taken through consensus between Prachanda and Oli. 

Will a former Maoist or UML leader get the coveted post? 

This is also a part of the larger power sharing agreement reached between Oli and Prachanda. So, obviously, the Speaker falls in the Maoist party. But there is also a school of thought that decisions should not be taken on the basis of former divisions but rather based on the basis of merit and contribution to the party. But without them responsibility, how can a person prove his or her capability? Some leaders have multiple responsibilities while others are being deprived of even a single responsibility. 

There are reports that former Maoists are holding a series of meetings and have decided to put pressure on Oli to secure the position of Speaker for themselves. 

The spirit of party unification should be kept intact. We have forwarded such views as a suggestion to PM Oli but not as a pressure tactic. 

So former Maoists will get the speaker for sure? 

The majority of party leaders and cadres think so. There has been no discussion on specific individuals. This is not a difficult issue. The two chairmen can immediately settle it. 

How do you evaluate the government’s performance?

Performance of both party and government has been dismal. They have failed to meet people’s expectation. The past one year was totally wasted. The Standing Committee meeting has taken place after one year. Hopefully things will now change. 

The political document presented at the Standing Committee talks about the growing tussle between the Belt and Road Initiative and the Indo-Pacific Strategy. Could you please elaborate? 

We have mentioned two things. First, we have emphasized the principles of Panchasheel and continued importance of non-alignment for Nepal. There is rivalry among big powers. Now, the BRI and the IPS have emerged. The BRI, launched in 2013, is focused on human development, physical development, and bridging the mental divides. The US fears losing its influence in Asia if the BRI succeeds. That is why the US came with the IPS last year. Though IPS America seems to be pushing military-type activities. We should not engage in them. The IPS tries to dictate our relationship with India. The main leader of the Millennium Challenge Cooperation (MCC) compact is the US but Nepal and India will have to implement it. If it is a matter between Nepal and India, there is need to sign a contract with the US. It rather suggests the US wants to increase its influence in Nepal. If we are not cautious, it could affect our sovereignty. 

How has the issue of Kalapani affected Nepal-India relations?

It has had a huge impact. Available bilateral mechanisms are the only way to settle border disputes. There really is no other way. Bilateral talks are the only means. There cannot be third-party mediation, nor have other countries that kind of leverage. Despite some ups and downs, Nepal-India relations have always been cordial. Now, Kalapani is undoubtedly a major agenda. Nepal’s domestic forces raked up the issue to serve their interests instead of opting for an appropriate diplomatic solution. Nor is this a new issue. In my understanding, both our government and India are making little effort to resolve it. If it is an issue, India should also seek a solution at the earliest. Similarly, our Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not trying enough. There are several issues between the two countries and we have various instruments as well. Issues could be resolved if only there were regular meetings of existing mechanisms.

Aren’t border issues by their very nature hard to resolve?

There are some mechanisms exclusively dedicated to border issues. For example, there is a foreign-secretary level meeting but seldom has this been held. If this meeting cannot take place, we can give such rights to our ambassador in New Delhi. He can hold regular meetings with Indian officials unless it is settled. But Nepal seems to be seeking a solution that is not diplomatic. India prefers diplomatic channels. It is a responsibility of both the countries to create the right atmosphere for talks. The environment here gives the impression that we are preparing for war. Effigies have been burnt, and there are protests in front of the Indian Embassy. All political parties and even the government is involved. But what will we get from the street? Our only option is activating bilateral mechanisms. If some issues cannot be settled at the diplomatic level, we can take them to the top political level. Even for this, we first need to build confidence. Now there is no confidence.

You say this is not a new issue. But protests erupted only after India came up with a new political map.

We are saying that it is a new map but it is not. India comes up with a new map every time it restructures its internal boundaries. Now they have imposed central rule in Jammu and Kashmir and come out with a new political map. In 1995-97, this issue was prominently raised in Nepal. In subsequent years, it was not a priority of our political parties. Now it has resurfaced again.  Why was this issue not resolved in the past? It suggests a mishandling of our foreign policy.

In your view, how does India view recent developments in Nepal?

India has officially said that it is ready for talks on Kalpani. Two former Indian ambassadors to Nepal, Shyam Sharan and Ranjit Rae, say Nepal was never serious on this issue. Other intellectuals are saying the same. India has proposed diplomatic channels to resolve Kalapani. Nepal has not said that it cannot be resolved through such channels. If Nepal says so, it could be moved to political level. Two of our former foreign secretaries have said that Kalapani cannot be resolved at the diplomatic level. Yet former Indian ambassadors are saying that as India has resolved border disputes with Bangladesh, issues with Nepal can also be resolved. India believes the situation in Nepal should be normal for meaningful talks. Street protests and negotiation cannot go hand in hand.

There also seems to be a belief in some quarters of India that other external elements are involved in the anti-India protests in Nepal.

Since 1950 Nepali political parties have always used Nepal-India bilateral relations to serve their vested interests. They negotiated with India with the same intent. There is competition among political parties to become nationalists. Earlier, PM Oli used this border issue for political marketing, now Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba is resorting to the same tactic. Your nationalism is tested based on the negotiations you conduct when you are in power. How best did you serve national interest? The prime ministers of the two countries used to talk over the phone on day to day issues but now they have not spoken. At the least, Nepal government should have appealed to people not to protest in the street, assuring them that Kalapani would be resolved through diplomatic channels.

Are you suggesting that Oli government is using the nationalist card to cover up its domestic failures?

The federal government’s performance has been dismal in the nearly two years since its formation. The PM’s image is sinking and he knows it. He is not capable of defending himself in parliament. Corruption is rife. When the government feels a sense of crisis, nationalism resurfaces. This is not a first time. In 2015, after the promulgation of new constitution, our leaders talked with India about constitution amendment but they did not talk with Madhes-based parties.

Do you think there will come a time when India says enough is enough about the anti-India protests in Nepal?

I don’t think Indians take the ongoing protests seriously. I have not heard of serious discussions in India about them. The Indian establishment clearly understands our capacity. They are of the view that such protests frequently happen in Nepal. I see a diplomatic failure on our side. We decided to send Madhav Kumar Nepal as a special envoy to India. Actually, he cannot resolve the problems, and which level was he to engage? Such anti-Indian protests would impact other negotiations on trade and transit. We may face difficulties in those areas. For example, take the onion crisis. This is not the first time India has faced an onion crisis. In the past, India used to send certain amount of onions even while it faced a shortage but this time they completed stopped delivery.

You fault our foreign ministry. But it has already dispatched a letter to New Delhi asking for high-level talks. It is India that has not responded.

Nepal is yet to clearly mention that it wants a foreign secretary-level meeting. In the meeting of Joint Commission held in September, the two countries had agreed on a foreign secretary-level meeting on border issues in January 2020 in Dehradun. There are many informal channels between Nepal and India which need to be utilized before proposing a formal meeting. First, Nepal will have to say that it wants dialogue at the political level. On our part, preparation is lacking. We have not updated our maps for over 40 years. We are in a state of confusion.

What is your take on India’s refusal to accept the final report of the joint Nepal-India Eminent Persons Group (EPG)?

Let me say few things on the EPG. First, it was formed in 2016 when bilateral relations were at a low.  Second, see the background of the EPG members. They all were giving statements against India before the EPG was formed. How could they have been expected to normalize relations? Third, Madhes-based parties spoke against the EPG in the parliament, rejecting the final report. It means the report is contested within Nepal. We cannot say that reservation of Madhes-based parties is a domestic issue. India is closely watching the dissatisfaction inside the country.

More seriously, the Nepali side leaked important portions of the report. We also decided to submit the final report to the two prime ministers. This is a report prepared by experts and there is no need to submit it to the prime ministers. Similarly, there was wrong understanding about the report. Nepal government spokesperson publicly said that India should receive and implement the report. He missed the point that the report is not mandatory.

But is it not dishonest on India’s part to reject the EPG report formed through consensus between two countries?

You are correct. I am not satisfied with Indian position of not receiving this report. India should do so. Unfortunately, we also created a hostile environment here. Except Bhek Bahadur Thapa, other EPG members spoke about the report before it was submitted and they projected it as a cure-all for bilateral ills. The EPG report should not be projected as bible.

In a separate context, how does India view growing Chinese influence in Nepal?

It is natural for foreign powers to seek their space. Chinese influence in Nepal has increased in all areas including politics and government. In the past, such space was exclusively reserved for India and the US. There is no doubt that there is a huge Chinese influence in ruling parties. India is obviously concerned. But they have not taken any policy measures. China’s aggressive diplomacy in Kathmandu, particularly in domestic politics, is a major concern for India. If India becomes active in East Asian countries like Vietnam, Philippines, it is a matter of concerns for China as well. China’s influence in domestic politics particularly in unification of two communist parties and government formation are matters of grave concerns for India as well as for us in Nepal.

How do you see the growing competition between US, India and China play out in Nepal? 

Our political and diplomatic leadership do not have the capacity to manage the growing competition among three powers. We agree to everything with everyone. We may face a difficult situation if this continues.  We have to develop a capacity of managing growing interests. There is already a worrying conflict between the Indo-Pacific Strategy and the BRI.