In May 2014, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi surprised the world by inviting all SAARC leaders to his swearing-in ceremony, a senior BJP leader had explained the gesture, especially the one to invite the Pakistani PM by saying, “We might have sour relations with our neighbour but we would still invite them to a wedding at home. This is our culture,” he said. A few months later, describing PM Modi’s visit to Nepal that had been warmly received by all, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj stretched the marriage metaphor, telling parliament that India and Nepal have ‘roti-beti ka sambandh’ (ties of food and daughter), referring to the roughly 60 Lakh Nepalis who live and work in India as well as the millions of inter-married couples. When Nepal suffered a devastating earthquake in April this year, PM Modi said India would “wipe the tears of its Nepali brothers and sisters”, helping as families always do.
But this Sunday, when there was a big celebration in Nepal, India, who should have had pride of place as a beloved and respected regional elder, did not attend the events to mark the adoption of a new constitution. Instead, much like the estranged uncle who doesn’t approve of a match, India issued three biting statements over three days, expressing disappointment over the document, warning that it had “repeatedly told Nepal” that no good would come of it. Does India have any right to a view on the constitution? Absolutely. This was a document prepared not just by the Nepali leadership, after all, and India has been at the forefront of Nepal’s friends in bringing the constitution together. This is a role India has played historically. In February 1951, India mediated the settlement that brought Nepal its first steps to democracy, with the Delhi accord signed between King Tribhuvan, who had fled to India, the Rana regime and the Nepali Congress that established the first cabinet, paving the way for elections.
Half a century later, New Delhi played both the host and the mediator for an end to the Maoist conflict. The 12-point Delhi agreement signed by the Seven Party Alliance (mainstream national parties) and the CPN (Maoists),which was inked in November 2005, paved the way for the first constitution after the monarchy was abolished. Since then, India has been a keen facilitator of constitution-building in Kathmandu, nudging the process along when necessary, counselling parties with patience, and providing a meeting-ground when required. When the process nearly broke down ahead of constituent assembly elections in 2008, the
Indian Embassy played host to the negotiations between political parties and the Madhesi parties that had begun a violent agitation for their rights, and paved the way for CA-I (first constituent assembly) as it is known. When the CA-II (second constituent assembly) was voted for in 2013, India had to play an important backstage part as well, even as it only claimed credit for “logistical support.” This has been India’s constant challenge throughout these decades, helping without wanting to seem heavy-handed, some times with less success than other times.
Next, are India’s concerns about the constitution valid? Absolutely. To begin the promise of proper representation to Madhesis must be kept by the mainstream political parties that made them. India’s concerns over the delineation of the provincial boundaries marked in the new constitution are only a reflection of the deep anger felt on the ground over provinces being carved with lines that effectively make Madhesis a minority in most states of the Terai. Likewise, The concerns over a lower number of directly elected constituencies in the Terai, compared to the hills or over proportional inclusion clauses that activists claim are skewed in favour of Pahadi forward castes, and the citizenship clause that denies high office to those not Nepali by descent are all valid, and must be debated further.
The question however is at what cost India is raising these concerns publicly, and how India’s rebuff from Nepal will play out in the subcontinent. Nobody can doubt India’s influence in Nepal, as a home for Nepalis who send back much- needed remittances, and as a provider of both civil and military supplies. In a special mark of their strategic closeness, both countries confer the highest General ranks on each other’s army chiefs.
Given their histories, dating back to before “the Himalayas and the Ganga” as PM Modi put it, it would seem short-sighted to allow India’s annoyance at the constitution to completely unravel ties between the two. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the document, both sides would accept that Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar’s mission to Kathmandu to have the constitution ceremony postponed came too late to make a difference. To arrive 40 hours before the grand ceremony, not as a guest, but to protest the festivities was bad enough for India’s image. To then refuse to welcome the constitution and issue threats on the violence even as revelers arrived in Durbar square was perhaps in bad taste. But it is the public admission that India failed to achieve its demands to Nepal despite all the tough talking that has the worst impact of all. What is also obvious is all the meetings with Nepali political groups held by PM Modi, the first PM to visit Nepal in 17 years, who visited not once but twice in 2014, were misread by India. Some of the blame for that must go to diplomatic channels, but at a time PM Modi has been in close touch with PM Sushil Koirala, speaking directly to him on the telephone during the aftermath of the earthquake, as well as a call to express concern on Madhesi violence on August 25th, it is puzzling that the government didn’t move quicker to express stronger reservations on the constitutional process. The government has always been aware that the constituent assembly voted in in 2013 gave the Madhesi parties a small representation, and it stood to reason that their protest wouldn’t count if the constitution went to a vote.
Equally, if as some in the security establishment claim, China has had an influence on the outcome in Nepal, then there must be some enquiry into how this slipped Indian notice. Finally, there must be an understanding that India’s interests are not the only casualty to the tough talking version of public diplomacy: future negotiations on amending the constitution and helping the Madhesi groups win their rights are hampered by the detailed objections India has made to the statute. The Koirala government will find it hard to accept any of the 6-7 amendments suggested by India without a loss of face domestically.
The Nepal experience is not the first time the NDA government has received pushback from a smaller neighbor. In October last year, NSA Ajit Doval had taken the visiting Defence Secretary Gothbaya Rajapaksa as well as the Sri Lankan navy Vice Chief Vice Admiral Jayantha Perera to task over the docking of Chinese submarines in Colombo harbor. A week later, the Sri Lankan government announced the docking of another Chinese submarine and warship, claiming it was “standard practice”. It took several months, and a change of government before Colombo discontinued that ‘practice’.
The Maldives, however, continues to hold out against India’s tough talking on the treatment of former President Nasheed. In February this year, India had expressed concern over the arrest and rough treatment of Mr. Nasheed, especially as they had not been warned that the action was even being contemplated, despite a visit by Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon a week prior to the arrest. The stand was reasonable, but the government in Male didn’t react well to the public dressing down and refused to budge, and PM Modi had to cancel his visit to Maldives as part of his Indian Ocean tour in light of the slight. In family terms, elders often use the Hindi phrase, “Ghar ki baat ko ghar mein rehne do” (keep domestic problems in the house). In subcontinental terms, the message is equally apt. No country: however close, small or keen to work with India responds well to being publicly upbraided, and despite its special ties, Nepal has proven no exception to this rule.
