Dahal-Prachanda’s Botched India Visit
By Shashi P.B.B. Malla
Theory & Practice
Ideally, Nepal’s foreign policy should be conducted such in order to influence other countries and advance the nation’s vital national interests and values.
We have to prioritize the importance of other countries with which we wish to maintain relations:
- The immediate neighbours – China and India – which are of paramount importance.
- The United States as the world’s sole superpower.
- International Organizations – foremost the United Nations – that anchor the basic tenets of our foreign policy.
- The other countries of the region South Asia, including borderline cases because of geo-political factors: Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives.
- Industrialized democracies of the West and pro-Westcountries that play a major role in our mutual economic cooperation: Japan, UK, Germany, South Korea.
- Countries in West Asia and South-East Asia that are welcoming of our migrant labour: Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Malaysia
- Other countries that contribute to our economic development: France, Russia
- Countries of the Global South with whom we are attached by our fundamental policy of non-alignment.
- Rest of the world.
The aim must be to achieve optimal results.
However, the approaches and tools that our decision-makers (leaders wielding power) produce different outcomes.
There are three fundamental debates that should define how our government should form their approaches.
- Isolationism versus Engagement
As the world has become more interconnected, it is clear that pure isolationism has become a thing of the past.
In our history, even when the country was restricted to the Emerald Valley, isolationism was not really practiced.
There always was robust trade with Tibet.
And to fool the British imperialists, Nepal sent five-yearly ‘tribute missions’ to the court of the Celestial Emperor of the Middle Kingdom.
- Idealism versus Realism
An idealist approach to foreign policy adheres to the belief that
Nepal’s participation in global affairs should reflect its values.
Whereas a realistic approach concentrates more on the external relationship itself rather than on what a government is doing internally.
We do try that our external policy reflects our domestic values.
But as a small developing country in a demanding geopolitical situations, we face many constraints.
- Unilateralism versus Multilateralism
Unilateralism, acting independently and multilateralism acting together are really two sides of the same foreign policy coin.
But they are not binary options.
These two approaches exist on a spectrum and most countries – including powerful ones – go back and forth depending on the situation.
Nepal’s hands are tied to a great extent and we do have to prioritize the multilateral approach.
Nepal’s leaders have generally been guilty of not having the right approach.
The decision-making process has mostly been opaque.
Leaders have also tended to make one-sided decisions, and not taking the advice of regional and subject experts.
PM Dahal-Prachanda’s India Visit
Even before the visit could take place, it was hyped to a great extent. And the expectations were very high.
A realistic evaluation of the current state of Indo-Nepalese relations should have thrown cold water on these high expectations.
What most analysts and experts totally ignored was the fact that Pushpa Kamal Dahal-Prachanda was just the wrong state actor to push through Nepal’s vital national interests.
First, Dahal-Prachanda just had too much political and emotional baggage to negotiate with Indian strongman Narendra Modi on an equal footing.
Our recent memory is not that short to push the basic facts to the background and ignore their impact on today’s events.
The significant fact that Dahal-Prachanda and his cohorts including the ideologue Dr. Baburam Bhattarai were guests of the Indian government in Noida near New Delhi when they were not fighting the Nepalese state during their so-called People’s War [which was in fact India’s proxy war].
The fundamental question is whether the Nepali “Maoists” and also ex-Maoists can be trusted to represent genuine Nepali interests.
It is, in fact, astounding that so many Nepalese trusted them!
Second, Dahal-Prachanda is not capable of understanding [or willing to do so] that – on the face of it – Nepal is a prisoner of geography.
Historically, we have had leaders skilled in statecraft who were willing and able to overcome the constraining element and forge new paths.
With the exception of B.P. Koirala, no politician of the modern era had the ability or vision to represent Nepal on the world stage with aplomb.
Dahal-Prachanda has not learnt the lessons of history.
Nepal has to utilize its geopolitical possibilities to the maximum.
At the same time, there is no alternative to a policy of dynamic dual non-alignment:
- Between our two giant neighbours, China and India; and
- Between the two superpowers, the United States and China.
As regards our relations with the two great civilizations of Asia, our illustrious King Prithvi Narayan Shah had already laid down the Doctrine of Equidistance [ or more homely: “the yam between two rocks’ analogy].
What Dahal-Prachanda and his rainbow coalition government have been doing in external affairs is totally unacceptable.
In South Asia, instead of a policy of strict non-alignment, he is favouring India and doing its bidding. He is always leaning towards the south.
In his new term of office, he insisted on visiting India first – waiting five long months for an official invitation – although an outstanding invitation to attend the Boao Forum for Asia in Nepal.
As usual, he completely ignored Nepal’s national interests and even lied through his teeth, saying the Chinese ambassador had advised him against attending because of Nepal’s domestic troubles!
Nepal’s relations with both superpowers are in troubled waters.
Dahal-Prachanda and his government have failed to realize that the Chinese factor i.e. Nepal’s relations with China, is extraordinarily relevant in both:
- South Asian Geopolitics
- Sino-American Competition.
Nepal cannot afford to deviate from the median line.
If the United States and India want to make common cause against China, it is their business.
On no account – not even a whisper of interest – can and should Nepal be part of this grand design.
Dahal-Prachanda and his government have failed miserably on this score.
Additionally, the ongoing ‘fake Bhutanese refugee scam’ or the ‘Great Larceny’ has not only disturbed relations with the United States, it has been a great blow to Nepal’s prestige and international standing. There has been no resolute action toward damage control.
India’s Role
India is basking in its newfound role as an emerging regional and international great power.
It is now the world’s most populous country, and soon to be fifth-largest economy.
It believes that it has effectively contained China not only in South Asia, but the Indian Ocean region – controlling all the choke points important for China’s international trade and security interests – the Mozambique Channel (between Africa and Madagascar), the Bab el-Mandeb (between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden), the Strait of Hormuz (between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman), and the Malacca Strait (between Malaysia and Sumatra/Indonesia).
In addition, it has bases of its own in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (controlling the approaches to the Malacca Strait), and security interests in Singapore, Chabahar port, Iran (near to the China-funded Gwadar port in Pakistan), Diego Garcia (UK) and Cocos Islands (Australia).
It is also making common cause against China in the ‘Quad’ (US, Japan, Australia,India) in the Western Pacific.
The geostrategic interests of the Quad members are bundled together in both the Indian Ocean region and the Western Pacific – forming the geopolitical concept of the “Indo-Pacific Region”.
Considering India’s regional and international ambitions, Nepal is just not considered important enough.
Thus, the Indian foreign minister can afford to make the newly-appointed Nepalese ambassador wait for more than seven months before condescending to receive him. After all, S. Subramanium has other fish to fry!
India under Modi has long abandoned its good neighbor policy.
Dahal-Prachanda’s India Visit
Nepal’s current prime minister achieved precious little during his recent official visit to India.
He kowtowed to India’s dominance. India was hugely successful in pushing through its agenda, whereas Nepal was palmed off with side issues.
There was no clarity on the important issue of forceful territorial encroachment.
There was no progress on the report of the ‘Eminent Persons’ Group’. It seems India has no intention of putting into effect the entailed suggestions.
India blocked aviation access to Nepal’s two new international airports – Pokhara and Bhairawa – just because they were built with Chinese aid.
The present government is just not capable of coping with Indian pettiness.
The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com
Login to add a comment