'Nepal today is far more aware, self-confident, aspirational, and assertive.'
'India's policy so far has not been geared to this shift. It is time to redraw our Nepal strategy.'
"There is a tendency in India to say 'you are like us, your country is like us' -- out of affection, but also out of a certain lack of understanding. Many Nepalese feel their own distinct identity has been severely overshadowed by India, and they want to assert it," says Professor Sukh Deo Muni, arguably India's leading expert on India-Nepal relations and former member executive council, Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses.
A professor emeritus at JNU, Professor Muni has conducted research in international relations at BHU and NUS, Singapore for nearly 40 years and is a former diplomat.
In an interview to Rediff's Archana Masih, Professor Muni discusses Prime Minister Balen Shah's first month in office, why Nepal does not want a tight embrace with India and the need to integrate this reality into India's Nepal policy.
Nearly a month into Balen Shah's prime ministership, what are your top takeaways from his first weeks in office?
1. The government currently enjoys popular support and has generated a wave of positivism. There is tremendous expectation that it will deliver on its promises.
Certain quick actions -- such as the arrest of former corrupt leaders -- have assured people that change is happening.
There is a considerable consolidation of hope. However, some questions have not been addressed. For example, the government has started implementing the Karki Commission report on the incidents of September 8th and 9th, but its approach seems to be selective. It has acted on the recommendations related to 8th, but not on the 9th -- which in fact precipitated a lot of violence and destruction.
Questions are being raised about the report itself and its selective implementation.
2. The government has depoliticised trade unions and told them not to be affiliated political parties, including student unions which has sparked protests.
3. The ban on goods costing more than Rs 100 from India has caused a lot protest in Terai region.
The dissatisfaction about government actions is not limited to Opposition parties alone. There is some discontent within the RSP party about the cabinet formation, and also amongst some Gen Z groups.
There is a gap between the promises made and what is being delivered.
What about foreign policy, especially with respect to India?
Nepal has been viewed as a buffer under India's strong influence, shaped by geography, and deep cultural and civilisational ties.
The present leadership rejects the buffer concept, and instead sees Nepal as a vibrant bridge between China and India.
This concept was actually first put forward by Maoist leader Baburao Bhattarai around 2011.
However, the key question is whether these two major Asian countries would want Nepal to be that bridge, given their substantial economic relations.
There is a popular perception that Balen Shah's foreign policy is seen to be tilting towards the West.
I read your tweet about US Assistant Secretary of State Paul Kapoor's statement in Kathmandu pertaining to China.
My view was not said in vacuum. Assistant Secretary Kapoor has said America does not want Chinese domination in Nepal -- or any other country to dominate Nepal.
That 'other' country can only be India.
Balen Shah had a call with the ambassadors of 17 nations. Is he tilting towards a neutral foreign policy, or perhaps leaning towards the West? What direction is his foreign policy likely to take? How will it impact India?
Both the Nepali and parts of Indian media are overstating this unnecessary debate.
An interaction such as Balen Shah's meeting with 17 ambassadors should not be read as a formulation of foreign policy. Such meetings are gestures of courtesy. Foreign policy, trade negotiations or strategic relations are conducted through bilateral engagements and interactions.
Balen Shah, like many prime ministers, including Prime Minister Modi wants to put his own stamp on governance. That is the hallmark of a populist leader. He will do everything which generates popular kudos.
The message of his foreign policy lies in rhetoric and signals: The concept that Nepal is not a 'buffer' but a 'bridge', proposed taxation of goods more than Rs 100, and rethink of the fixed exchange rate between the Indian rupee and the Nepali rupee.
In the past, as mayor, he had displayed a map of Greater Nepal including parts of India in his office -- and banned some Indian films.
The map was a reaction to the map of Akhand Bharat in the Indian Parliament where Nepal was shown totally absorbed into India.
In the film Adipurush, Janki was called India's daughter. No Nepali would accept that because Janakpur is in Nepal.
However, these are not definitive indicators of foreign policy, but reveal his mindset which suggest a desire to have good relations with India, while firmly asserting Nepal's rights.
Does that mean that Nepal does not want to view India as a 'big brother'?
The term 'big brother' is a western concept -- which means surveillance and punishment if one violates rules and regulations. In India we refer to it as 'dadagiri'.
A more appropriate analogy would be of viewing India as an 'elder brother'. Unlike a 'big brother' who dominates and punishes; an elder brother will scold you, but will support and protect you during a crisis.
After all, India is first responder to all the crises in the neighbourhood which reinforces the perception that it is not a 'big brother', but an elder brother.
You can find fault with the behaviour of the elder brother, but never doubt his ability to come to your rescue.
Under a young prime minister, do you think Nepal would be willing to view India as elder brother?
They would be prepared provided the elder brother does not inflict illogical and unnecessary punishments like the economic blockade of 2015.
The Indian media or Indian scholarship tends to overlook Indian behaviour. The narrative is that Nepal has tilted to China when India has treated them so well.
But that is not always accurate. There are instances when we have interfered in their affairs and acted in ways that have caused resentment.
What should India be looking at with this new political dispensation? What do you think India should be doing?
Look, India's diplomacy so far has been working on the Kathmandu power elites with the aim of having a 'pliant' government in Kathmandu. At times, we have interfered in matters totally unrelated to us, driven mainly by the fear of expanding Chinese influence in Nepal.
We have been playing a chess board game. My contention is that it is time to sit down in the policy room and redraw our Nepal strategy.
Rhetoric around Roti-Beti Samman, civilisational ties and links to Pashupatinath, Muktinath and Lumbini are no longer enough.
Nepal today is very different. It is far more aware, more self-confident, more aspirational, and therefore more assertive. That is why leaders have been able to mobilise public sentiment, including at times against India.
Our policy so far has not been geared to this shift.
India needs a reset in how to deal with Nepal. India must engage with Nepal with respect and sensitivity. There is a tendency in India to say 'you are like us, your country is like us' -- out of affection, but also out of a certain lack of understanding.
Many Nepalese feel their own distinct identity has been severely overshadowed by India, and they want to assert it. A key question in the neighbourhood, including Nepal, is how close to India is not too close.
They know they have to depend on India, but they do not want a tight embrace that subsumes their own identity.
If the Government of India does not integrate this reality into its policy framework, I am afraid we will continue to have problems.
Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff