Context

• Relations between India and Nepal have seen significant turbulence since 2015, a year marked by the leadership of Prime Ministers Narendra Modi of India and Khadga Prasad Oli of Nepal.
• This period has been characterised by diplomatic strains, economic blockades, and geopolitical manoeuvrings that have left a lasting impact on the bilateral relationship.
• However, the current political landscape presents an opportunity to recalibrate and stabilise these relations, with both leaders once again at the helm of their respective governments.

An Analysis of India-Nepal Bilateral Turbulence: Reasons, Implications and Efforts to Restore Ties

• Nepal's New Constitution and India's Reaction
  • In 2015, Nepal's Constituent Assembly adopted a new Constitution, marking a significant milestone in the country's political development.
  • This new Constitution was intended to solidify Nepal's transition to a federal democratic republic following a decade-long civil war and subsequent political turmoil.
  • However, its promulgation was met with considerable controversy and opposition, particularly from India.
  • India had expressed concerns about certain provisions in the Constitution, primarily related to the representation and rights of the Madhesi community, an ethnic group predominantly residing in the Tarai plains near the India-Nepal border.
• The Blockade
  • In response to the adoption of the Constitution, India imposed an unofficial blockade on Nepal, severely restricting the flow of goods, including essential supplies like fuel, medicine, and food.
  • The blockade, which began in late September 2015, lasted for nearly six months and had devastating effects on Nepal's economy and its population's daily lives.
  • The landlocked nation, heavily dependent on imports from India, faced acute shortages, leading to widespread hardship and unrest.
  • The official Indian stance was that the blockade was a result of protests by the Madhesi activists who had blockaded key entry points along the border.
  • However, many in Nepal and international observers believed that the Indian government had a direct hand in enforcing the blockade as a means to exert pressure on Kathmandu to amend the Constitution.
• Political and Economic Implications of the Blockade
  • The blockade not only strained diplomatic ties but also had profound political and economic repercussions.
  • It disrupted daily life in Nepal, with hospitals running out of essential medicines, schools closing due to lack of fuel, and businesses suffering from the scarcity of goods.
  • The blockade worsened the challenges Nepal was already facing in the aftermath of the devastating April 2015 earthquake, which had caused widespread destruction and loss of life.
  • Politically, the blockade strengthened nationalist sentiments in Nepal and led to a shift in its foreign policy orientation.
  • PM Khadga Prasad Oli, who came to power shortly before the blockade, leveraged the crisis to bolster ties with China.
• Diplomatic Efforts to Restore Ties and Unresolved Issues
  • Following the lifting of the blockade in early 2016, efforts were made to mend the strained relationship between India and Nepal.
  • High-level visits and diplomatic engagements aimed to rebuild trust and cooperation. However, the legacy of the blockade continued to cast a long shadow over bilateral ties.
  • The blockade highlighted the complexities of the India-Nepal relationship, underscoring issues of mutual dependence, sovereignty, and geopolitical manoeuvring.
  • The unresolved grievances of the Madhesi community remained a contentious issue, affecting Nepal's internal stability and its relations with India.

Post Blockade Diplomatic and Political Strains between India and Nepal

• Post-Blockade Tensions and Territorial Disputes
  • Despite diplomatic efforts to resolve the fallout from the blockade, the relationship remained strained due to unresolved territorial disputes and nationalistic rhetoric from both sides.
  • In October 2019, India published an updated political map that included the Limpiyadhura-Kalapani region, an area also claimed by Nepal.
  • In response, Nepal's Parliament amended its Constitution to incorporate the Limpiyadhura-Kalapani region into its own map.
  • This unilateral action by Nepal escalated the dispute, highlighting the deep-seated mistrust and sensitivity surrounding border issues.
• Increasing Indian Involvement in Nepali Politics
  • During this period of heightened tensions, India increased its involvement in Nepal’s political and governance issues.
  • This involvement manifested in several ways, including political pressure, diplomatic engagements, and support for certain political factions within Nepal.
  • India's actions were seen by many in Nepal as interference in its internal affairs, which contradicted the principles of non-interference and mutual respect outlined in the Panchsheel doctrine.
  • India's engagement extended beyond formal diplomatic channels. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) actively promoted a Hindutva agenda within Nepal, aiming to align Nepal's political and cultural landscape more closely with their vision of India.
• Perceived Overreach and Power Dynamics
  • India's involvement in Nepal's internal politics was perceived as overreach by many Nepalis.
  • This perception was compounded by India's actions during the blockade, which were seen as punitive and coercive.
  • The blockade had left a deep scar on Nepal, and India's continued involvement in its political affairs was viewed with suspicion and resentment.
  • The power dynamics between the two countries were starkly illustrated during the tenure of Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal (‘Prachanda’). Dahal, the leader of the Maoist party, faced criticism for his perceived subservience to India.
  • During his visits to India, Dahal was reluctant to address contentious issues, such as the air routes for Nepal's international airports, the territorial dispute over Limpiyadhura-Kalapani, and the report of the Eminent Persons’ Group (EPG).

Moving Forward: Opportunities and Challenges

• Recalibrating Diplomatic Relations
  • With Prime Minister Narendra Modi securing a third term in India and Khadga Prasad Oli reclaiming leadership in Nepal, both countries have a chance to reset their bilateral relationship.
  • This fresh start could focus on building trust, addressing unresolved issues, and fostering a more cooperative and respectful partnership.
  • Regular high-level engagements between the two countries can help in addressing misunderstandings and building trust.
  • Summit meetings, foreign minister dialogues, and joint commissions can serve as platforms to discuss bilateral issues and explore areas of mutual interest.
• Addressing Territorial Disputes
  • The territorial disputes, particularly over the Limpiyadhura-Kalapani region, need a nuanced and diplomatic approach.
  • Both countries should prioritise dialogue and negotiations to find a mutually acceptable solution.
  • Engaging in continuous and structured bilateral talks with a focus on resolving the territorial disputes is
  • These discussions should be based on historical documents, maps, and mutually agreed principles to reach a fair resolution.
• Economic Cooperation and Trade
  • Economic cooperation is a key area where both India and Nepal can benefit immensely. Strengthening economic ties can create a win-win situation, creating growth and development in both countries.
  • Reviewing and updating trade agreements to facilitate smoother and more efficient trade can boost economic relations.
  • Reducing tariffs, addressing non-tariff barriers, and improving customs procedures can enhance bilateral trade.

Conclusion

• For India and Nepal to achieve a stable and positive relationship, a shift in approach is necessary.
• Developing mutual understanding and cooperation can transform the open border between the two countries into a model for regional peace and connectivity.
• This change would likely lead to a politically stable and economically vibrant Nepal, benefiting India's own security and economic interests.