Submit your Article

There is no point crying over spilled milk, right? Perhaps. But what does it say about the mindset of the seemingly all-pow­erful Prime Minister KP Oli, and his equally strong counterpart, Nar­endra Modi, that the head of govern­ment in Nepal was once again forced to make New Delhi his first foreign stop, sorry, pilgrimage?It suggests that much of PM Oli’s talk of pursuing an independent foreign policy course is bluster. His hasty visit to New Delhi is an indica­tion that he too subscribes firmly to the view that Nepal’s leader should always toe India’s line, nay, try to obey the old master even before he has made his wish public. The hush-hush one-on-one between the two leaders in New Delhi, for an hour and a half, fans this speculation.

On the other hand, India’s eagerness to welcome Oli before he ‘escaped’ to any other country betrayed a colonial mindset and an inferiority complex vis-à-vis China on Modi’s part. But in retrospect Modi was perhaps confi­dent that he could use his charms to get Oli to turn his back on China.

If a Nepali prime minister could first go to, say, Beijing instead of New Delhi, it would kill two birds with one stone. One, it would dispel the widespread perception that Nepali leaders are always beholden to India and cannot act independently. Had Oli dared to venture to China first, he would have poked a big hole in this self-defeating narrative. And it would also be a credible proof of his nation­alist credentials.

Two, it would also benefit India, whether the current Indian establishment realizes it or not. India could then perhaps deal with Nepal as a rising global power, which it is, rather than as an insecure regional bully that likes to scare its small neigh­bors into submission.

Were Indian leaders and bureau­crats more relaxed in their role as rep­resentatives of a rising global power, they would see that India enjoys nat­ural advantages in South Asia that is hard to emulate for any other power, including China. The allure of the largest democracy in the world, with such potent soft power tools as cricket and Bollywood, would be virtually impossible to match.

PM Oli seems to be in a mood for a bluff. By going to India first, he, some way, wanted to show his allegiance to Modi. He would then be free to pursue his pet agenda of closer ties with Beijing. (Or perhaps it is China he is bluffing.) But why does a strong prime minister like him, perhaps the strongest in the history of dem­ocratic Nepal, need to resort to such chicanery, and one which would likely backfire when he eventually plays his hand? If he was so sure of himself, and so keen to protect the national interest, as he professes, why could he not take India into con­fidence into breaking a useless and self-defeating tradition?

Again, it is a ridiculous tradition, sustained by fear (in Nepal) and insecurity (in India). With such anx­ieties and apprehensions guiding bilateral relations, Nepal-India ties are unlikely to come to an even keel. If there was one person who could have changed this hoary script, it was Oli—that dogged bulwark against the Indian blockade.

Prime Minister KP Sharma’s India visit, for all intents and purposes, was heavy on sym­bolism. Both sides were keen on resetting bilateral ties that fell to historic lows after the 2015 blockade.In Nepal the fear of a Nepali Prime Minister compromising on ‘national interest’ during an India visit is ever present. There is a perception that Indians try to extract their pound of flesh from the occupant of Baluwatar in exchange for their support. Since the 1990s, virtually all Nepali lead­ers have looked to the South to get into Baluwatar. As soon as a new prime minister is elected, visiting Delhi to shore up support becomes one of the first acts of duty. Since New Delhi extends the customary invitation along with its congratulatory call, one can argue that New Delhi demands this homage. With the exception of Puspha Kamal Dahal’s first ten­ure, no other Nepali prime minis­ter has deviated from Delhi’s strict political choreography.

What’s different this time?

Well Oli, despite his team’s rhet­oric to instead bring the Indian PM to Nepal first, did stick to tra­dition. But unlike in the past, the Nepali PM was able to deal with his Indian counterpart from a position of strength. The Joint Statement and the joint press con­ference have telltale signs of Oli successfully resetting India-Nepal ties on a more equal footing. Of course, at this stage, all we can see is the form, not the substance.

During the joint press confer­ence, Modi made subtle sugges­tions to accommodate all sections of society in Nepal’s develop­ment—perhaps an indirect refer­ence to the Madhesi demand for constitutional amendment. PM Oli, on the other hand, stressed the ‘principle of equality, justice and mutual respect’—indirectly telling New Delhi to stay out of Nepal’s internal politics. Oli also took a swipe at India’s cross-bor­der power purchase guidelines that he said wasn’t consistent with free market principles and the PTA signed between the two coun­tries. The fact that both prime ministers agreed to disagree openly, albeit politely, points to a more mature relationship. This clearly shows, at least for now, that New Delhi has become a bit more accepting of its declining influence and limits in Nepal.

But the biggest acceptance on New Delhi’s part appears to be the expanded role of the ‘big ele­phant in the room’—China, as SD Muni puts it. That was reflected in the agreement to expand Indian connectivity with Nepal through Inland Waterways and a rail line to Kathmandu.

What this agreement on con­nectivity allowed Modi was to control the narrative on China’s increasing engagement in Nepal.New Delhi appears to have accept­ed that Oli would inevitably sign a railway agreement in Beijing soon after his Delhi visit. By pre­empting Beijing, New Delhi hopes to counter any narrative about it losing its traditional sphere of influence. Domestically, this helps the BJP to frame its messages as it faces general elections next year.

As Oli ran on a nationalist plank and secured a substantial major­ity for his coalition, the political leadership in New Delhi appears to be willing to do the dance for now. But it may not stay that way if Kathmandu fails to maintain high-level political communica­tion and Nepal affair gets delegat­ed to the bureaucratic and intelli­gence levels in India.

Rajapaksa’s playbook

Perhaps not the best person to emulate, but there certainly were things in former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s diplomatic playbook that the Oli administration would do well to learn from. As Rajapaksa’s gov­ernment began the campaign of a final push against the LTTE in 2008, Colombo needed a lot of arms and ammunition. The Chi­nese and the Pakistanis came in with an open offer. But Rajapak­sa initially sent his two brothers to New Delhi with a shopping list, which India declined to offer. Still he kept sending his brother Basil and his foreign minister to New Delhi at regular intervals. Rajapaksa is said to have con­veyed to Mahmohan Singh and Pranab Mukherjee in 2008 that his government would readily accept a deal with India if New Delhi offered equally favorable terms as Beijing. India wouldn’t or couldn’t match the Chinese offer. As a result, India was forced to accept, if not tacitly support, the campaign against the LTTE.

As Nepal’s engagement with China grows, the onus of reaching out regularly to New Delhi at the political level falls on both the incoming National Security Advi­sor and Foreign Minister. Only such an approach can sustain the current symbolic resetting of ties and a degree of strategic autono­my Nepal seems to have gained—and ensure another disagreement does not lead to a recurrence of blockade-like hostility.

twitter@johnparajuli

A visitor asks, “When is New Year in Nepal?” We all smile. The visitor scratches his head.Thamel, Lakeside and various other areas which cater to the young, young-at-heart, and tourists get into the New Year spirit in both December and April. There is pretty much something for everyone, from the more expensive dinner deals, to the bars and clubs and events held on open spaces such as the Tundikhel and the Jawalakhel foot­ball ground. As the time approaches bar and club owners just hope this year the police are in a benevo­lent mood with regard to closing times. Now I don’t want to jinx it, but we have all known times when for some reason the police figure we should all be tucked up in bed by 10pm and go around enforc­ing early shutdown of restaurants, bars etc. I’ve never managed to work out the logic behind this. And on a side note, I hear the police are now raiding hotels arresting Nepali cou­ples of consenting age. What’s with that? Frustration? Boredom? You would think they would have better things to do.

Back on point. I remember one Nepali New Year when I was attend­ing an event in the outside garden of the old 1905 on Kantipath (sadly no longer there). Midnight had just passed and the international DJ announced he would keep play­ing till 2am. I went inside to use the toilet and when I came out, I found myself locked in the build­ing! Luckily, being an old building, some doors where bolted from the inside only (what I would have done if it had been a modern, shuttered building, I don’t know). On ‘escap­ing’ I saw there were a few dazed looking foreigners still around but all the staff had disappeared. The police had come to close the event. But at least we managed to celebrate midnight. Later I found out from a friend who was playing at a gig somewhere else that the police had come round before midnight to shut that event down!

In Scotland, New Year has always been celebrated eh, enthusiastically, shall we say? Traditionally, after the ‘bells’ at midnight we go from house to house in the neighborhood offer­ing a drink from the bottle (probably whisky) we are carrying and accept­ing a drink from the host. Any house that has its lights on can be visited, even if you don’t know the people who live there. The traditional New Year Eve gift is a lump of coal. That tradition goes back to the days when everyone had coal-fuelled fires in the house. While the rest of Britain gets the first day of the New Year (January 1st) as a public holiday, we in Scotland need two days to recover and so the 1st and the 2nd are both public holidays. In fact in Scotland the first time you visit a friend or relative’s house during the month of January you will be expected to eat Christmas cake and other goodies, and drink whisky as if it was still New Year Eve. Every Nepali I know would love it—I can see them now getting down with their rendition of Bhim Niroula’s “Monday Morning Love you”!

Back here in Nepal while the majority of the many, I believe seven, ethnic new years are celebrated with puja, prayers, street parades and dances, Naya Barsa, celebrated mid-April, seems to be heading down the road of Gregorian new year, at least in Kath­mandu. Less prayer, more eating and drinking. Less family, more Get Your Groove On Lounge. Less grandpa and grandma, more cute guy or girl from college. Great for the hospitality industry, not so great for Nepali culture.

So… back to our visitor… what would you say?

A couple of weeks ago, the European Union Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) released Nepal’s election observation report 2017. The report drew the attention of the government and onlookers. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a strong press statement condemning it, urging the authors of the report to withdraw some controversial recommendations which ‘violated the mandate of the election obser­vation mission’. The report brought to surface—once again—the undercurrents of regional and ethnic polarization in Nepal. Many Madhesi and Janajati political parties and activists sup­ported it, while the rest of the coun­try launched into a tirade against the EU EOM, going so far on social media as to say the EU should be kicked out of Nepal for good. According to the government and the opposition, the EOM not only misinterpreted Nepal’s PR (Proportional Represen­tation) system as a ‘quota’ system, but dived into ‘unauthorized’ terri­tory in their suggestions. However, despite some poor choice of words and issue focus (possibly guided by misinformed political advisers or analysts), the report was in fact rich in content. But that content was overshadowed by the towering bold fonts and strong language used to highlight a couple of recommenda­tions. The need to reform Nepal’s electoral practices and systems was thus put on the back burner.

The EOM report’s reverberations are in some ways reminiscent of a time not long ago, the last time KP Oli was the prime minister: the 2015 Indian blockade. Here we find the same nationalist fer­vor that engulfed not just the political class, but the majority of people who played sheepishly to the tune. That is not to say that the EOM report is not worth criticizing or that its intentions are apolitical—there clearly was some political intent. However, in retrospect, what it has done is fuel the populism of the government.

If the statement from the foreign ministry focused on the ‘mal-in­tent’ of the EU EOM report, the prime minister’s statements which came a couple of days later went so far as to lump all donors into one pool and even suggested the report was payback for Nepal having sent back some ‘religious conversion’ missions a while ago. No one both­ered to check that the report clearly states that the EOM is an entity entirely independent of the EU, let alone of other donors working in Nepal. It clearly states that all opin­ions in the report are of the authors and do not represent those of any EU countries and diplomatic mis­sions in Nepal or outside.

As such, it was pitiful to have to watch one interview and statement after another talk about the EU as a grave enemy to Nepal as though its offices should be shut down and its diplomats sent home immediately.

Having said that, it is important to be vigilant about the kinds of activities that donors, including the EU, promote in Nepal. On the burning issue of the ‘Khas-Arya’, the suggestion that this group should be removed from the PR system stems from an understanding that the group is an ‘elite social group by birth’. That is 31 percent of the population and the EU should know better than to make such controver­sial statements, especially with this particular government in place and the wide public support it enjoys. It should have been clear to the EU a controversy was in the making when it drafted those recommendations.

All these controversies are only working to make this prime minister stronger. The nationalist wave that was created during the Indian block­ade is boosted by factors like the EOM’s report and KP Oli continues to ride that wave and the populist sentiment behind it. In the eyes of the PM, the opposition is weak, and the civil society is discredited, disorganized and politicized. The media is focused on other things. If the international community and the donors can be discredited, in Oli’s eyes, that’s one more threat he has subdued. Using populist and nationalist rhetoric to discredit the international community could give Oli even more of a free hand than he already has.