Submit your Article

 Nepali Congress leader Deep Kumar Upadhyay is a former two-time Nepali ambassador to India. He led the Nepali mission in New Delhi at a difficult time of the great earthquake and the economic blockade in 2015. Upadhyay is credited for his role in the restoration of political level engagement between India and Nepal following Narendra Modi’s ascent as prime minister in 2014. Biswas Baral and Kamal Dev Bhattarai talked to Upadhyay about the prospects of bilateral relations under Narendra Modi, when he has been reelected as prime minister for the second term.

As Nepal’s ex-envoy to New Delhi, how do you evaluate the prospect of bilateral relations in Modi’s second term?

Modi has been reelected and stability in India is a good opportunity for us. Diplomacy is a craft and a skill should not be evaluated based on what we read in books. Diplomacy is all about results. People in both countries want to see improved Nepal-India relation in Modi’s second term. This means Nepal’s trade imbalance with India would be minimized, flood and inundation in Tarai would be addressed, both countries would benefit from shared waters as per national and international treaties, and other bilateral pending projects would move ahead. 

In my experience, Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself oversees India’s Nepal policy and I expect this state of affairs to continue in his second term. In the first term, PM Modi, Minister for External Affairs, Indian Ambassador in Kathmandu, his Foreign Secretary and his National Security Advisor were the key persons on Nepal policy. I was officially told by the Indian side not to listen to anyone besides these five. The Indian side requested me to convey the same message to Nepali leaders saying that India is big country where there are many people and organizations that speak with different voices, which may not be the official line. 

In 2014, Modi tried to restore political level engagement with Nepal. But it is now said that Indian bureaucrats are once again starting to call the shots on Nepal.

The restoration of political engagement was evident when Modi addressed Nepal’s Parliament in 2014. However, there were also questions about him. Just because he is a prime minister with single-party majority and a towering personality, it was alleged, he could not change the system. Honestly, Nepal-India relation was in conflict mode at the start of 2015. That is why our Prime Minister Sushil Koirala wanted to send a top politician as the Nepali ambassador to India. India’s foreign policy is better managed than ours. In every foreign policy issue, the foreign ministry would be involved. And in every ministry, there is a joint secretary of foreign ministry. The power of foreign ministry is high. Before I was appointed ambassador everything used to be conducted from Indian Embassy in Kathmandu.

There was no tradition of informing Nepali embassy in New Delhi. When I tried to increase my political access in Delhi, the Indian side cautioned me: There are over 200 missions there and it would be difficult for them if we started bypassing the foreign ministry desk. They used to convey in sweet words that the concerned division at the Ministry of External Affairs was ready to give us any service, hinting us not to directly approach politicians. Despite all these, we succeeded in restoring relationship at the political level. This helped minimize the conflict. The blockade could have been even more detrimental had the conflict mode not been removed at the political level.

Are you suggesting the Indian bureaucracy was unhappy about Nepal’s efforts to restore political level engagement?

They felt uncomfortable, which was normal. During the blockade, Rajnath Singh was home minister and all security agencies were under him. I helplessly sought his help to resolve the border dispute. He gave me a very good advice. Despite having a cordial relationship at the top political level, he told me that he could not do anything as it was solely the remit of the Ministry of External Affairs of India. He suggested I talk to Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj instead.  

Even Swaraj used to call joint meetings with foreign secretaries and other senior officials on bilateral issues. Now, we have a relationship at political level and we can thank Modi. Various joint mechanisms are active but there are still doubts about how to make them deliver. If we see the bureaucracies of the two countries, they always engage in blame-game. Senior ministers from Modi cabinet used to tell me to utilize this time as Modi wants to see a prosperous Nepal. They also proposed a video conference between the ministers of two countries to find the bottlenecks in bilateral projects and immediately remove them. Indian ministers were in favor of resolving bilateral issues without delay.  

It is often said that clashes between political leadership and bureaucracy creates problems in Nepal-India relations.

There is negativism in the bureaucracies of both countries. I nonetheless had good relations with the Indian bureaucrats. The Nepali bureaucrats used to tell me that the Indian side was good with sweet words. “But will India really support us?” they asked me. I urged them to be specific and deal on a case-by case basis, forgetting what happened yesterday. But they were not convinced and used to say that India only holds project with no intention of completing them. The Indian bureaucracy on the other hand said several projects were not moving because of the Nepali side. We should make our foreign ministry effective. Without a strengthened foreign ministry, we will never have sound foreign and defense policies. Global politics is changing fast. There is the Indo-Pacific Strategy. There is the BRI. We should be smart to handle those issues.

You talked about the Indo-Pacific Strategy. Traditionally, India has not looked kindly on greater western presence in Nepal. So will it really toe the American line in South Asia, including in Nepal?

Those issues should be viewed in detail. Certain countries of this region, excluding China, are under the Indo-Pacific Strategy. India is more concerned about its neighbors. For example, if there are problems in Nepal’s Tarai, the first impact would be on India. So they are very sensitive. There could be convergence of mind on the overall interest of Indo-Pacific Strategy but India is more concerned on its core issue of neighborhood. In this context, we have to put forth our position clearly. We should not accept the wrong proposals floated by others. We cannot afford to say ‘yes, yes’ everywhere.

So the Indians won’t be guided by the Americans in their immediate neighborhood?

India looks after its interest and security. For example, India was aware that if the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) continued to highlight ethnic issues in Nepal, it could ultimately affect its own interests. This is why it lobbied for its closure. We have to be clear on our bottom-line with India, the US, China, and the EU. There is a systematic attack on Nepal’s culture and ethnicity. Time has come to review our past mistakes and move ahead.

How does New Delhi view Nepal-China relations? Are there any redlines that Nepal cannot cross?

The Chinese diplomats I used to meet in New Delhi were very clear. They wanted cordial Nepal-India relations and cordial Nepal-China relations. They were of the view any rail or road project that come to Nepal should also support Indian population. That such routes should help both India and China.

But what about the Indian perception of Nepal-China relations?

S Jaishankar, who has been appointed the Minister for External Affairs, is an expert on India-China and India-US relations. They are very clear about Nepal-China ties. Narendra Modi started courting the Chinese long ago and brought many Chinese companies into his home state of Gujarat. I also asked Chinese companies in Gujarat to invest in Nepal. India is not serious about the Nepal-tilting-towards-China narrative. They are aware that Nepal is a sovereign country that can make its own decisions. For 17-18 years, India left Nepal in the hands of administrative entities with a free hand to do whatever they wanted. Our ministers used to run after second and third class officers of Indian Embassy. Now, there has been a drastic change.

When Nepal signed the BRI agreement with China in 2017, there was Indian pressure not to do so. How did you resist this pressure as Nepal’s envoy in New Delhi at the time?

They had some apprehensions. We told them that the agreement we were signing is just a framework agreement. That, at the decision-making level, i.e the phase of selection of projects, we would be selective and Nepal would be careful about its payback capacity. During the BRI talks, the Indian side used to raise the issue of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which passes through disputed territory.  

How did you convince the Indian side?

The BRI is a necessity of our time. All other countries in this region had signed on to the BRI. I told them if Nepal did not, it would give an impression that Nepal is in a tussle mode with its next-door neighbor, which does not send a positive message. We told them that we would be careful with the BRI loans. I further told them that Nepal is aware of the experiences of other South Asian countries on the BRI. Finally, they said as a sovereign country, Nepal is free to arrive at its own decisions.

During the Doklam crisis, you were in India. What sort of pressure does Nepal feel if India-China relations are confrontational?

That particular issue was related to Bhutan. Bhutan was very clever; it stayed behind the scenes. Some people were saying that there could be a war between India and China. After a meeting with Jayashankar, then foreign secretary, I was clear that war was not happening. There was no pressure on us to take sides in these disputes. Nor does the top Indian leadership expect that from us.  

What should PM Oli and Modi do to improve bilateral ties?

Both countries should be honest in implementing agreements reached at the top political level. There should be transparency on who is dishonest on this. If we do everything according to a system, there will be progress. Modi himself is very positive on Nepal.

There are also fears that Hindu forces in Nepal would be emboldened under a more assertive Modi.

The Indian leadership works within the framework of their constitution. The people holding official positions cannot provide prescriptions or impose things. We ourselves imagine stuff and speak on it publicly. I do not see such a possibility.

But top leaders who were engaged in constitution drafting say Modi always wanted to restore the Hindu state in Nepal.

The Indian leadership could have said that when our own leaders sought advice on it. But Modi has broken with the tradition of imposing agendas on Nepal. There is no need to drag outside forces into our internal politics.

 The Nepali Congress (NC), the main opposition at the federal level as well as in six of the seven provinces, is still smarting from its heavy electoral losses in the 2017 elections. Party President Sher Bahadur Deuba has looked to hang on, refusing to take personal responsibility for the party’s electoral setbacks. But it’s getting increasingly tougher for him to continue as president in the face of a strong challenge to his style of ‘autocratic’ lead­ership from old establishment figures like Ram Chandra Poudel, dynastic politicians like Shekhar Koirala and Prakash Man Singh and the younger generation led by Gagan Thapa. The party has just completed a nation-wide tour to gauge public sentiment on how the Grand Old Party may be revived. In this context, Biswas Baral and Kamal Dev Bhattarai spoke to political ana­lyst Puranjan Acharya, a close observer of Congress politics

How do you evaluate the perfor­mance of the Nepali Congress as an opposition party over the past year and half?

In the initial six to nine months of the Oli government’s formation, the opposition party was as good as nonexistent. In this time, a sec­tion of the ruling Nepal Commu­nist Party (NCP) led by Bhim Rawal played the role of the opposition. The main opposition party leader is Sher Bahadur Deuba, who is also Congress President and a federal parliamentary party leader. Anoth­er opposition leader is Congress General Secretary Shashank Koira­la, a federal MP. At the center, the NC could play the role of effective opposition through its parliamen­tary party leader. Ditto in the seven provinces. The party can revive if its parliamentary party leaders in all seven provinces take their roles seriously.

How can provincial leaders help revive Congress?

In a federal set up, provincial lead­ers gradually emerge as national leaders. For example, Indian leader Narendra Modi, who started his political career in Gujarat, ultimate­ly emerged as a national leader and is now the Indian prime minister for the second term. The NC has not thought about leadership-build­ing. No one is thinking about the party’s role at national, provincial and local levels. Provincial parlia­mentary party leaders live in a state of confusion and are uninformed about their roles. Additionally, if Deuba had played a vital role at the center in the initial 8 to 10 months, it would have reenergized pro­vincial and local levels. He could not do so. Thus the NC has also failed to play the role of an effective opposition in provincial and local governments.

What are the major roles of the main opposition in a democratic set up?

The first role of an opposition party is to hold the government to account. The parliamentary party leaders should raise the problems faced by people in their day-to-day lives and the issues of the country’s future and prosperity. The parlia­mentary party leader should also activate the role of lawmakers in parliamentary committees, which means making government account­able. There are several examples where the opposition party has not raised its voice strongly.

For example, the communist gov­ernment made a time-bound com­mitment on the completion of the Melamchi drinking water project but failed to see it through. The opposition should have vehemently raised this issue, and if necessary, obstructed the parliament. Deuba could have instructed party cadres to stage street protests to expose the real reasons behind the delay. Or he could have spoken about it in the parliament with hard facts and figures.

The second role of an opposi­tion party is to make government transparent. The policy decisions of this government, the modality of the budget and its major deals lack transparency. In most other countries cabinet decisions are made public instantly, but our gov­ernment is concealing them. The NC should have strongly protested this. The role of the opposition is to put pressure on government to be transparent in its functioning and decision-making.

Third, we have a communist gov­ernment that commands two-thirds votes in the parliament. Its activi­ties suggest it is heading down an authoritarian track. It is the respon­sibility of the NC to prevent the gov­ernment from taking this route.

Why is Congress failing on these crucial fronts then?

I think the focus of party president Deuba is not on these issues. Not only Deuba, General Secretary Koi­rala is not paying attention either. Frankly, their focus is not politics. They do not know the roles they are supposed to play in the par­liament and the party. With due respect, Deuba, Shashank and the parliamentary party leaders of all seven provinces have failed to carry out their political roles. Parties in government and opposition have both failed in their political respon­sibility.

This is a dark phase in Nepal’s recent political history when the main opposition party lacks effective messengers to inform the people of government wrongdoings. There is a need of an effective communicator who can speak with the people, the media and the international com­munity. NC President Deuba lacks this skill. As an opposition party leader, it is Deuba’s responsibility to convey a strong message on the government’s wrong decisions. Both Deuba and Shashank have failed to play that role.

What about their role outside the parliament?

Their roles as party president and general secretary are to inform and to create awareness among cadres. They should instruct cadres and leaders to protest certain govern­ment decisions, to monitor its activ­ities, and highlight people’s general issues. These will in turn expand the party’s support base. To gain public support, the NC should raise the issues that are either being neglect­ed or handled improperly.

Has Deuba failed to effectively lead the party?

We cannot put all the blame on Deuba as there are other senior leaders in the party as well. How­ever, Sher Bahadurji is the party’s commander. For example, he did not speak a word about the gov­ernment’s pre-budget policy and program, as if he was in no mood to offer any resistance. It shows the NC is failing to monitor the government closely. To connect with the people, it is necessary to get timely infor­mation on government policies and convey its import to the people. The NC is rather spending all its ener­gy in internal power competition. When the general convention will be held is still uncertain and yet the leaders are already canvassing their districts.

It was Deuba’s strategic blunder not to try to prevent the alliance between the two communist forces when the Maoist party was in a coa­lition with him. In the election cam­paign, he tried to build a narrative that if communist forces won, they would impose an authoritarian rule but people did not believe him. He failed to make a strong electoral alli­ance with other fringe parties and to provide organizational as well as ideological leadership to the party. A party never loses an election; it is its leader who does.

The leadership who loses steps down; a new leadership comes with new vigor and vision and revamps the party. In the past, the BJP leaders who used to stay in New Delhi made the party weak. It is leaders such as Modi who came from outside Delhi who rebuilt the party. Likewise, Congress leaders who live in com­fort in Kathmandu are running the party and not those who are con­nected to the grassroots.

There have long been talks about handing over the NC’s leadership to the younger generation. Why hasn’t that happened?

The party proceeds based on its statute. There should have been a provision in the statute for a special general convention to elect new leadership if the party loses an elec­tion badly. Some countries have such a practice. It is not about who comes to power in the party but about paving the way for a new lead­ership to tackle the new situation. Now, the Congress lacks freshness. Deuba had a golden opportunity to announce a special general con­vention as the party lost the 2017 elections under his leadership. This could have been the first step toward the NC’s revival. Now the process has completely stopped.

How do you see the NC’s future leadership?

The party is also a strong bureau­cracy. Some people will try to save Deuba, arguing that the party did not lose due to his leadership. They will indulge in all sorts of legal/illegal, appropriate/inappropri­ate games to save Deuba. Active membership would be distributed accordingly. Sending a message that Deuba is still popular and can lead the party would create unhealthy competition. Another faction will work tirelessly to boot him out. This means the party would be trapped between these two forces. The next general convention will be held as per the wishes of these factions. The leaders and cadres who are genuine and who enjoy public support will gradually distance themselves from party. Unhealthy competition and money-based politics will repel peo­ple with high values and principles.

Is there a possibility of handing over party leadership to another generation anytime soon?

Now, there are three factions in the party. The first is a hierarchical faction encompassing leaders who have emerged from a long strug­gle, who have served jail terms and are unceasingly dedicated to the party. This faction is led by Deuba himself. The second Congress is called dynasty Congress or umbrella Congress.

This faction is living under the umbrellas of their fathers. At the forefront of dynastic power are lead­ers like General Secretary Shashank Koirala, leader Shekhar Koirala, Bimalendra Nidhi and Prakash Man Singh. This faction draws strength from people’s emotional attachment to their families. The emotion is still saleable and works inside the party.

The third faction is republic Con­gress which emerged from the 2006 people’s movement. This faction carries some agendas and their leaders have strong communication skills. This faction has the capacity to drive the 21st century. The cur­rent symbol of republic Congress is Gagan Thapa. Other ascendant leaders in this faction are Pradeep Poudel and Gururaj Ghimire. The republic Congress faction is weak in the party but it is the only force capable of fighting the communists. The hierarchical Congress which fought the Ranas and Rajas cannot fight the communists. The leaders of the dynastic faction never rose up through the ranks; they emerged under the protection of their fathers and think 10 times before ventur­ing out of their comfort zone. The republic Congress has age on its side and its members are under pressure to reform the party for the sake of their own future. The party culture, however, is not republic Congress-friendly. Hierarchy and dynasty still rule the roost.

Which faction is likely to win party leadership at the next gen­eral convention?

To win, two factions should come together. No faction can win on its own, no matter who leads it. If the three factions fight separately, there will be give and take after the initial rounds of votes. One thing is clear: the republic Congress alone cannot win party elections.

Can you explain why?

The republic Congress has public support and if the party’s active members are allowed to vote direct­ly, its leaders will win party leader­ship. But there is a strong bureau­cratic network in the NC, which is beneficial to hierarchical and dynas­tic politics.

Again, I do not think the party led by hierarchical leaders can fight the communists. Dynastic politics is being phased out of South Asia. Hierarchical Congress will feel a shock in the next leadership contest. My prediction is that the republic and dynasty factions will form an alliance, that Shekhar Koirala and Gagan Thapa will come together. This development will lead to frag­mentation in hierarchical Congress. After one general convention, Gagan will lead this faction. But this time, there is an emotional wave in the NC that after Deuba’s failure, the party again needs a Koirala leadership. It would not be a surprise if the leader­ship goes back to the Koirala family for emotional reasons.

So you think it’ll be a while before Congress emerges as a force that can effectively chal­lenge the powerful communists?

As per the NC statute, the gen­eral convention should take place within a year. But this won’t be pos­sible. The party’s position in the next election is a separate question. Soon after the convention, there will be local elections. Without set­tlement of intra-party disputes in the convention, the party will again struggle to win any election. Hence it is Deuba’s responsibility to hold the convention on time and revive the party.

Q. How would you describe yourself in three words?

A. Fun loving, adaptable and ambitious.

Q. If you were to be somewhere now, where would it be?

A. I want to be right where I’m at now. My career is important to me and I’ll do anything to move it forward. I honestly can’t think of anywhere else I would rather be.

Q. A song you wish had your vocals?

A. There are many but if I had to choose, it’d be “Bhanu K Ma” by Poonam Singh feat Cobweb.

Q. In one word, what is music to you?

A. It would be unjust to describe music in just one word. I think its “indescribable”.

Q. A song you would like to dedicate to your fans?

A. ‘Shabda’ because it’s my first original song that the audience loved and supported.

Q. A person from the music industry you always look up to?

A. There are many but one would be Amy Lynn Hartzler.

Q. How would someone get your special attention?

A. People know me as a singer. Maybe with my voice.

Q. What is one message you would give to your fans?

A. I want to thank all of my fans for being the best fans possible. I will never forget where I came from. I’m never too far, I’m always one phone call, text, Instagram message or Facebook message away.

Q. What is your pet peeve?

A. People who talk while their mouth is full.

Q. Who do you respect the most?

A. Everybody who makes an effort.

Q. Could you share any of your secret tricks?

A. Drink in moderation. Weed is good for you. Learn to love everybody. Make sure your music is honest.

Q. What advice would you give to other aspiring musicians?

A. Practice.

Q. What is one mistake you see a lot of up-and-coming musicians making?

A. Everybody makes the same mistake. It’s the same mistake. Everyone makes it.

Q. What is something that bugs you about the music scene?

A. People frequently questioning the music scene.

Q. What is one super power you want?

A. Patience.

Q. What is one track that never gets old for you no matter how many times you hear it?

A. “Lag Jaa Gale” by Lata Mangeshkar.

Q. What is one track that got popular that you can't stand?

A. “Macarena”. I used to love it as a kid but now I can’t stand it.

Q. If you could have coffee with a celebrity, who would it be and why?

A. Bob Marley because he would bring the best weed.

Q. Your favorite getaway?

A. My room.