Diplomacy Or A Path Forward?

After 14 months since assuming office, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has finally received an invitation letter to visit India. The invitation letter sent by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was delivered to Prime Minister Oli by Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri. Nepal's politics constantly make headlines, whether it is moving north or south. Delivering speeches and putting them into action after taking on executive responsibility for the government are two very different things. It is a long-standing custom for the prime minister's first trip after taking office to be to India, followed by China. China has expressed little to no concern or interest in Nepal's issues. China had no expectations, particularly during the Maoist era, other than that Nepal adhere to the One China policy. However, ties with India are not identical to those with China. Traditional, cultural, economic, geographical, and resource usage differ in numerous ways. That is why India appears to be paying close attention to not only Nepal's political reforms but also to all aspects of the country. However, the scenario is steadily changing. Clouds that might cause flooding can be seen from anywhere.

Regardless of where the storm comes from, Nepal's geography and geopolitical restrictions require us to have a cordial relationship. If Nepal falls into the traps of radical nationalism by denying this hard reality of international politics, the Nepali people will suffer. If we start looking for reasons why we should cover the entire road with the tiger sitting on it, we run the risk of becoming prey. However, if we can discover the goal by demonstrating our ingenuity in finding our path, our lives will be protected, and we will arrive at our objective. Nepal has border concerns with India, among other issues. Nepal could consider progressively becoming more developed and powerful by acknowledging them. A state without power cannot rely only on the help of another power. It would be appropriate to compare the situation in Ukraine and that of Israel in this regard. Nepal would not be in the same weak situation as it is now if it obtained power by being constructive with India and presenting itself in an authoritative way about its issues.

One specific example is the present relationship between China and India. The border issue between China and India is significant. However, both nations appear to have collaborated since they share similar ideas on economic, trade, industrial, and, more recently, international concerns. It is time for Nepal to develop a plan based on the example of friendly neighboring nations that have worked to improve their ties by putting border problems aside. In some ways, this is regarded as a harsh truth, alongside the ironic situation and thinking of Nepali politics. In this context, we need to travel back in time a bit.

Between 1816 and 1947, the British Indian administration influenced Nepali politics. During his tenure, Jung Bahadur reclaimed the area of Nepal that had been lost in the Sugauli Treaty of 1816, in whatever form it was. Even after regaining control of the country, we continue to learn about Nepal's bitter history of dependence on the British Indian government. If Nepal's rulers had the power, diplomatic acumen, and governance that India possessed when it got independence in 1947, Nepal might have reclaimed the whole land lost under the Sugauli Treaty. The rulers of the day lacked that courage and expertise. However, in the period of independent India, this has become an impossible reality. It is impossible for Nepal's rulers or governing system to reject a new relationship with India. According to Nepal's founder, Prithvi Narayan Shah, Nepal is like a yam between two stones. It must be safeguarded. However, it is not conceivable without adopting the strategy of either remaining a yam or transforming into steel. It is important to transform Nepal into steel between two stones. For that, the leadership should take the initiative to experience the truth of relations wisely and build an international personality.

To grasp the dimensions of Nepal-India and Nepal-China ties after 1951, political writings, ranging from BP Koirala's prison diary to Matrika Prasad's revolutionary activity, are essential. It would have been beneficial to the country if every leadership that took over the government of Nepal understood the circumstances, whether it was BP's connections with Pakistan and Israel or its bid to grant China membership in the United Nations. King Mahendra's effective foreign policy might also serve as an example. It is feasible to gain insight into Birendra's peace zone plan. In some cases, they were successful, but in others, they did not succeed.

The established reality is that India's subtle influence has been evident in Nepal's political upheavals, even a change of government. There have been very few attempts to eradicate or minimize it. The example of this kind of effort is the stance adopted by then-Prime Minister Sushil Koirala during the promulgation of the 2072 constitution, followed by KP Oli's approach in the face of the undeclared blockade. Despite the fact that these positions have supplied energy in the development of Nepal's national strength, the country has been unable to go forward in terms of being powerful. Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Sher Bahadur Deuba, and KP Oli have served as prime ministers in the past 10 years. India did not seem to be happy with Oli because of his stance after 2072, which included the BRI with China, the trade transit deal, the narrative of Ram's birth, and so on. But gradually, the efforts of Foreign Minister Rana, the changes in international relations, China's interest in Nepal's politics, and other factors may have gradually convinced India that it must maintain a liberal relationship with Nepal. though it is late, the Indian Prime Minister's invitation to the Nepalese Prime Minister is quite encouraging, and we feel Nepal should take advantage of it in its own best interests.