What does India expect from this coalition?
India wants to maintain a healthy relationship with all South Asian countries, and Nepal holds a very special place in the Indian foreign policy. Nepal shall not be seen merely in terms of political ties or regime changes. Despite witnessing difficult times, this relationship has remained smooth over the years. Every Indian—and not just the government—expects the coalition government to be friendly toward India. Dahal is familiar with the political and social milieus of India; he knows this country so well. India played a very vital role during his struggle against the monarchy. Against the backdrop of these linkages, every Indian wants an open, friendly Nepal. A few people in India believe that Dahal has sometimes taken positions against India’s expectations. Looking at Dahal’s overall political position, though, I feel that the position he has taken should not be a cause for concern. More than Dahal, I feel that KP Oli, at times in a very rhetorical manner, has taken positions that cannot be considered quite friendly toward India. The China factor is of course, but it is everywhere. To understand it, you have to look at it from the Chinese perspective and not from the South Asian perspective. The Chinese have money, they want to invest in South Asia. China is a very big power, and it has very good relations with Western countries and many others. So, why can’t it have good ties with South Asian countries? I do not read China investing in a South Asian country as an anti-India thing. Of course, there will be competition between the two giants, and everybody is aware of it. How hopeful are you about the resolution of long-standing irritants like border disputes, security issues, and Nepal’s expectations of a more favorable access for its goods in the Indian market? There is nothing that cannot be resolved between India and Nepal, because it is not merely the politics that connects us. Let me bring a very recent example regarding the construction of the statues in Ayodhya. When two Shila sourced from Nepal were arriving, it was like fanfare in India. This is but one aspect of India-Nepal relations, which often figures in our academic and intellectual discussions. We know there are very strong people-to-people connections. There are issues, particularly those related to the border, which have become quite prominent from 2015 onward. Both sides have shown seriousness to resolve these issues through dialogue. When it comes to the India-Nepal border, it’s an open and porous border. I think both countries are in a much better place to resolve this dispute. Let me explain it a bit. If you look at the India-Pakistan border and India-Bangladesh border, it’s a different story altogether. These are very securitized borders, so the resolution of issues is very difficult, as a lot of political contestation is involved. As for the India-Nepal border, it requires willingness on the part of both sides to resolve it. India should think of a better way to integrate South Asian economies with its market and allow access to Nepali goods in the Indian market. Recent narratives from the Indian scholarly community and media propagate that Chinese activities are on the rise in Nepal. How do you see this? This is a critical question for all South Asian countries. China is investing in all South Asian countries, including Nepal, which also has seen a surge in China’s FDI. Nepal is also part of the BRI project. The Indian strategic community sees it all with a bit of skepticism. Nepal is India’s next-door neighbor and some of these projects will give China access to areas close to the Indian borders. The Pokhara (international) airport is a case in point. China is part of the project (in Pokhara), which is not that far from Gorakhpur on the Indian side. People with a strategic outlook look at these kinds of activities with alarm. This is because India and China, despite good trade relations, have failed to resolve political issues, particularly the border issues. The Indian people may look at increasing Chinese investment in Nepal’s infrastructure sector in a different way, though Nepal has made it clear repeatedly that it wants to act as a bridge between India and China. I don’t feel there are many takers of this position in India. Nepal has to decide what kind of bridge it can be. Nepal and India have to think quite a lot when it comes to China’s involvement. There is suspicion about this whole thing, but I also have faith in people-to-people and social connections between the peoples of the two countries. What are the domains that need improving in terms of government-to-government ties? One of the things we should be doing is focusing more on the people. Somehow over the years, we have seen that young generations on either side of the border have misunderstandings on a variety of issues. This needs to be resolved and both sides need to promote people-to-people contacts. Border issues come second. Political rhetorics hardly help. The two countries should work to resolve the disputes. Market integration is the third important thing. India should think in terms of its South Asia policy with a view to integrating it with the markets of other countries and vice-versa. Fourth, India must look into development projects that it has supported in South Asian countries, including in Nepal. To conclude, I have seen in the last couple of years a shift in Nepal’s position toward China. This change has happened in the last 2-3 years, for whatever reason. In the wake of the Sri Lankan crisis, China is facing questions regarding the utility of its investment in the region. It’s not that things will remain the same. As for foreign policy, it will keep changing and India-Nepal relations will change accordingly. But people-to-people relations will remain the pillar of this relationship. There is a very strong people-to-people connection between these two countries, and we should not ignore this in any of our discussions.
