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.
