By Our Reporter
Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle’s declaration in New Delhi that the era of nationalism associated with anti-India sentiment is over has reopened an old and sensitive debate in Nepal. His remarks at the NDTV World Summit, the choice of words, the setting and his repeated efforts to reassure the Indian audience have raised a more troubling question.
Nepal has never needed hostility towards India to defend its national interests. The two countries share close historical, cultural, economic and social ties. Maintaining friendly relations is a basic foreign policy objective. Yet friendship does not require silence on border disputes, unequal treaties, trade restrictions, flood control structures or India’s reluctance to purchase electricity from certain Nepali projects. Raising these concerns is not anti-India nationalism. It is the duty of a government that represents a sovereign country.
Wagle’s remarks risk blurring that distinction. By declaring an end to anti-India nationalism, he appeared to suggest that Nepal’s past concerns about its powerful neighbour belonged to an outdated political mindset. That is a sweeping judgement, especially when many of those concerns remain unresolved. As former foreign minister Narayankaji Shrestha and other critics have pointed out, Nepal has opposed interference and unequal treatment, not the Indian people or India as a country.
The question of Wagle’s political instincts also deserves attention. A few years ago, former Rastriya Swatantra Party general secretary Mukul Dhakal alleged that Wagle had once suggested handing Nepal’s affairs over to India. There is no concrete evidence to establish that he made such a statement, and it would be unfair to treat the allegation as fact. Yet his latest remarks have revived suspicion about how he views Nepal’s relationship with India and where he believes the country should draw the line between cooperation and deference.
Does Wagle want to remain in the good books of the Indian establishment? His comments may have been an attempt to build trust with New Delhi, perhaps to present himself as a leader who will not allow domestic political pressure to affect bilateral relations. But a finance minister should not have to prove his credentials to a foreign audience by appearing dismissive of his own country’s national concerns. If he believes Nepal’s nationalism has been wrongly defined by some political groups, he should explain that distinction at home, with facts and clarity.
Login to add a comment