The Nepali people have given themselves a progressive Constitution after decades of turmoil (“Constitution sans consensus,” Sep.22,” and “Apply Panchsheel on Nepal,” Sep.24). Kanak Mani Dixit is right in suggesting that India should apply principles of Panchsheel and give the Nepali people space. There are lessons to be learnt by India from the Constitution, which has recognised the rights of the LGBT community and has abolished the death penalty.
Vishal S. Jadhav,New Delhi
It is disconcerting that India’s role in Nepal’s Constitution-making is being perceived as negative. People from the two countries have always enjoyed excellent relations. Nepal is a buffer state between India and China. Therefore, India has genuine strategic and security interests in Nepal, imperatives that have forced New Delhi to intervene in Nepal politics. I also disagree with author’s suggestion of using Panchsheel to govern the bilateral relationship. Because of the power asymmetry between nations, every state attempts to strengthen itself, making redundant such principles. Further, Nepal should desist from blaming India for its internal failures. Kathmandu elites have, for long, used the India card to prevent genuine power devolution.
Binod Kumar Agarwal,Jamshedpur
The Constitution fails to recognise the rights of the Madhesi and Tharu communities, and deprives them of constitutional benefits, which could trigger a greater migration to India’s border States, particularly to Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Eventually, this would affect the bilateral relationship. Therefore, concerns expressed by India are legitimate and need consideration.
Jubak Saxena,Agra
