Don’t make EPG report an enigma in India-Nepal relation

Once a new government is installed in Kathmandu, deliberations on Nepal-India relations take the center stage of national politics.  However, attempts have been made for a long time to find a permanent solution to the problems seen in Nepal-India relations. Be it the border dispute or the friendship treaty of 1950 and others, there have been a long series of discussions between the two countries. In this context, the Eminent Persons Group’s (EPG) report is currently being discussed in Nepal at a level that has once again achieved par. After the formation of the new government consisting of the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, when the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nepal, Arzu Rana Deuba went on an official visit to India, questions were raised about whether Minister Deuba would raise the issue of the EPG report. Same concerns were raised with the erstwhile governments. While releasing a book written by one of the members of EPG, Suryanath Upadhyay; on Sept 7, PM Oli expressed his belief that the Indian prime minister would receive the EPG report, despite the fact that the current government does not appear to have made a formal comment on it. The prime minister’s commentary carries meaning in bilateral matters, whether it is at a book launch or in other casual settings. Importantly, it has extra significance because the current prime minister and India have a turbulent past.

Is it accurate, nevertheless, that this report is being discussed aggressively in Nepal? In what way does this report matter for Nepal? Shall Nepal be adhered to this report? The purpose of this article is to depict how, during the last six years, the EPG report has been seen as an enigma and what path Nepal needs to tread on.

Formation and flux

In the year 2011, when Baburam Bhattarai was the prime minister, during his visit to India, the proposal to form EPG was made public through a joint statement. The purpose of the proposal was to further strengthen multi-dimensional relations between the two countries. The then prime minister of India, Manmohan Singh, also agreed to this. Five years later, in 2016, there was a formal agreement on the formation of EPG. After the announcement of the EPG, the group held a meeting in Kathmandu and formally started the study. The mandates assigned to the EPG were to analyze previous treaties, mostly the 1950’s treaty and agreements between the two countries. In a similar vein, to suggest essential actions to improve the social-economic, political, and cultural ties as well as mutual trust between the two nations.

Likewise, suggesting other areas required for fostering and bolstering friendship between the two countries, as well as institutional frameworks for ties and steps to eradicate cross-border crime while boosting peace, prosperity, and cordiality. The EPG held a total of nine meetings in both countries and approved the report of the EPG in 2018. On behalf of Nepal, Bhekh Bahadur Thapa (coordinator), Rajan Bhattarai, Nilambar Acharya, and Suryanath Upadhyaya were members. Bhagat Singh Kosiari (coordinator), Jayanta Prasad, Mahendra P Lama, and Bhuvanchandra Upreti, members from India, are in the group. The EPG members agreed to submit the approved report to the Prime Minister of India first and then to the Prime Minister of Nepal. After six years, the Indian side has not received the report.

Following the adoption of the 2015 Constitution of Nepal, the UML, led by KP Sharma Oli, formed the government. The Nepali Congress was out of power. The Madhesh-centric parties were agitating because of dissatisfaction with the fast-tracking of the constitution. Nepal and India's political ties were not harmonious. Given this context, the formation of the EPG between Delhi and Kathmandu was created purely for ‘political face saving’ of each side. The agitated Madhes based parties resisted the formation of the EPG without a broader consultation. The EPG was meant to assess the boundary between India and Nepal, but instead it is controlled by leftists, with not a single person from borderland included. The formation of EPG and its procedure seems to be divisive prima facie inside Nepal.

Don’t be stuck; be strategic 

Despite the political and diplomatic ups and downs, there has been no decrease in the intensity of economic exchanges and people-to-people relations between the two countries.

The India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship  was signed by the last Rana prime minister of Nepal, Mohan Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana, and the then Indian ambassador to Nepal, Chandreshwor Prasad Narayan Singh on 31 July 1950 and came into force the same day. However, the Treaty of 1950 was engulfed in controversy before its ink had even dried. That controversy kept coming to the surface from time to time. The controversy mostly comes from ‘communist-oriented intellectuals’ and from those who believe in the nationalism shaped by the late king Mahendra. As a result, this issue remained an important issue in the relationship between the two countries. Undoubtedly, the treaty signed by the prime minister from the Nepalese side and the Ambassador from the Indian side reflects prima facie inequality. Similarly, in the report of EPG, Nepal has put forward a proposal that some articles of the peace and friendship treaty of 1950, such as 5, 6, and 7, are not up-to-date.

The way the Nepali members of EPG have been leaking  the contents of the report in various programs from time to time shows how impatient the members are, and it also cannot be said that there will be no influence of other external forces against India while the EPG study is going on. As some of Nepal's former foreign ministers and members of EPG sometimes make irresponsible comments in programs organized by various NGOs and institutions, Nepal should now make this report public, albeit unilaterally. This appears to be strategically weak and a violation of EPG’s privacy. This will only give India a space to act more tactically.

By the time the EPG group is formed and it completes its studies, India has a government led by Narendra Modi. During this period, a government was formed in Nepal under the leadership of KP Sharma Oli, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, or Sher Bahadur Deuba. However, none of the prime ministers have been proven instrumental in handing over the EPG report. In the recent past, UML Chair Oli, who led a powerful and stable government and became the main opposition, raised the issue of EPG from the rostrum in the Parliament, but this report was not prioritized even during Oli's tenure. Now is the time, and like the EPG members, the prime minister who understands the seriousness of the relationship between Nepal and India should discuss the relationship between the two countries better than commenting in informal forums. The jingoism between Nepal and India should be ended by fundamentally solving the enigma of EPG.

Incidentally, the Nepali Congress, the largest party of Nepal, is also in the role of an ally in the journey of driving the country along with the Oli government. The current coalition government can hold talks with the government of India. Finally and above all, it seems relevant that everyone remembers the analogy given by diplomat Madhurman Acharya to India in relation to Nepal. He depicts in his book, Nepal World View: ‘India is a kalpbriksha, the tree that gives you the fruit you wish. If handled carefully, India provides many solutions to Nepal’s problem. But when the wrath of the bigger neighbor becomes difficult to manage, it can be the source of trouble as well.’

@randhirJNK